Austin Road Co. v. Boston

GRISSOM, Chief Justice. Boston and wife sued Austin Road 'Company and R. W. McKinney for damages to 37.9 acres of land caused by actions of.the defendants under an option and a lease of said land to Austin for the purpose of exploring for and mining stone. Plaintiffs alleged, that- Austin obtained an- option to lease said land, for mining" stone; .that it exercised the option and the Bostons executed such ajease; that the-purpose of the option was to1 “explore” the premises and, in the event marketable stone was found, to obtain a lease by paying the- Bostons $1'50. The’ lease- expressly provided that the land was leased for. the purpose of excavating, processing' - and marketing stone; it' expressly provided that Austin had the right of ingress and egress and the right to build roads, erect buildings and machinery, and make all other necessary improvements.- It fixed the price of stone removed from the premises but provided that there was no obligation, either express ór implied, to produce sand, gravel or stone buf, if produced, the royalty was- to be paid as provided in the lease. The Bostons alleged that after execution of the option and lease Austin caused the premises to be explored to determine whether it' contained marketable stone that met the specifications of the' State; that after the premises were tested and explored Austin paid them $150 and the lease -became effective;' that Austin, its agents and employees, ' brought on the premises heavy equipment and commenced operations that permanently damaged the land; that they brought in bulldozers, graders, tractors, road building and rock crushing equipment; that' they pushed and tore down trees and graded roads; that the roads were graded without ' consideration for the natural drainage'; that they “cleared away” top soil,' leaving bare rock exposed and that large boulders were unearthed and left on the surface. Plaintiffs alleged the conclusion that the lease did not permit Austin to do said things and -that they were outside the purpose and intent of said lease and unnecessary in connection with excavating, processing and. marketing, of stone, “other than the stripping operation”; that McKinney was “involved in the damage”; that there was no contract with McKinney and he had no right on the land except under his contract with Austin. The Bostons *375 further alleged that defendants 'did not-riell any stone, moved off the .premises and made no effort to fill up the holes, level the roads or repair the damage done and that “the damage done to the* real estate is.a .permanent and lasting; damage and is incapable of being repaired”. ,, , ' The jury found that (1) ‘injury to the plaintiffs’ land' did riot' result frorn the “activities of R. W." McKinney towards the production of rock from the1 lands”; that'(4) injury resulted to plaintiffs’ land “as a result of activities by the Austin Road Company toward the production of róele from the -lands”;'- that (5) the value of the-land before the operation by Austin was $3,979.50,"' and that fits ■ valúe after-wards was $2,179.50. The court rendered judgment against Austin for all damages done to plaintiffs’ land by all said operations, to wit, $1,800, and Austin has appealed. It is -undisputed- that' most -of- the acts complained of were done by McKinney. The contract between Austin and McKinney shows that, so far.as.it is-concerned, McKinney was an independent contractor. Before, the Bostons were entitled to recover from Austin any damages to' the land ‘caused by McKinney it was necessary that the evidence show conclusively, or that the plaintiffs obtain a finding, that McKinney was an agent or employee of Austin. The evidence is certainly nbt conclusive that McKinney was an agent or employee. Such an issue -was not submitted to the jury. There was no finding that any .act of Austin constituted negligence. There was. no finding - that in doing the acts charged against it Austin used more of the land or dfid anything that was not neces-, sary in properly conducting the operations authorized' by the option and lease. Plaintiffs alleged that the option authorized Austin to “ex-plore” plaintiffs’ land for the purpose of determining, whether it contained rock that met, the specifications required by Austin’s contract with the State. There is no’finding that-1 Austin did anything in exercising its rights under the option that was not authorized by it. Under the lease Austin was impliedly authorized to. do everything reasonably necessary for mining rock. There is no finding that Austin did anything not reasonably, necessary to mine rock. Und.er both the option and lease Austin was authorized to do, at least,, ^ome, of the things.that, damaged the land, y.efc judgment, was rendered against Austin .for all of, the damages-done to the land, regardless of whether it was, authorized by its contracts and regardless of whether,-it was done by an ■-independent contractor. McKinney was not found to be either the agent or-employee of Austin. Discovery and.mining of . rock and doing all things reasonably -necessary therefor -were certainly authorized. To .sustain :the judgment.plaintiffs-.were-required to prove that the damages recovered were' caused b.y the negligence of. Austin, or that it used more of plaintiffs’ land than was - reasonably necessary to do the things authorized by the contracts. Austin had the right to use as much of the surface, and to use it in such manner, as was reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the option and lease. Placid Oil Co. v. Lee, Tex.Civ.App., 243 S.W.2d 860; Meyer v. Cox, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W.2d 207, 208 [Writ Ref.); Robinson Drilling Co. v. Moses, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W.2d 650, 651, and Warren Petroleum Corp. v. Martin, 153 Tex. 465, 271 S.W.2d 410, 413. The judgment is reversed rind the cause remanded.