## Facts

- The Martins owned the surface of a tract in Wayne County, West Virginia; Buffalo Mining Company held coal and mineral rights under the tract through a lease derived from an 1890 severance deed.
- The 1890 deed conveyed the minerals and granted broad surface-use rights, including “all proper and reasonable rights and privileges for ventilating and draining the mines” and the right to erect “machinery, telephone and telegraph lines, and other improvements necessary or convenient for the operations upon said lands,” plus associated rights-of-way.
- Buffalo operated a large mining project that included coal beneath the Martins’ tract.
- To support mine ventilation and operations, Buffalo hired a contractor to erect an electric transmission line across the Martins’ surface.
- The Martins attempted to obstruct construction, and Buffalo sued for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Wayne County.
- The Martins presented no evidence at trial, treating the dispute as a purely legal question of deed interpretation.
- The circuit court allowed Buffalo to construct the line; the Martins appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1890 severance deed’s broad grants of surface-use rights and rights-of-way authorized construction and maintenance of an electric transmission line across the surface to support mining operations.
2. Whether the deed-based surface rights were limited to facilities serving only the minerals directly beneath the Martins’ tract, or could be used as part of a larger integrated mining operation that also benefited other areas.
3. Whether the deed’s general language was confined to technologies contemplated in 1890, thereby excluding electric transmission lines.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court.
- The court held the deed language authorized Buffalo to construct and maintain the electric transmission line as an improvement “necessary or convenient” and a “proper and reasonable” incident of mineral operations.
- The court rejected the argument that incidental benefit to mining operations beyond the Martins’ tract defeated the right to use the surface.
- The court rejected the argument that unanticipated modern technology narrowed the scope of broadly worded surface-use grants.
- The absence of evidence showing the line was unnecessary, unreasonable, or excessively burdensome supported injunctive relief for Buffalo.

## Legal Principles

- In a severed estate, the mineral estate is dominant and carries implied and express rights to use the surface as reasonably necessary to develop and operate the mineral estate, subject to limits against unnecessary or unreasonable surface burden.
- Broad deed language granting “proper and reasonable” privileges and “other improvements necessary or convenient” is construed to include later-developed methods and infrastructure consistent with the deed’s mining purposes, not only items specifically listed.
- A mineral owner or lessee may employ surface facilities that are reasonably incident to mineral development even if the facilities also serve an integrated operation extending beyond the precise subsurface of the particular tract, absent proof of overreach.
- Where the surface owner offers no evidence of unreasonableness, excessiveness, or feasible alternatives reducing surface impact, courts are less likely to impose extra-textual limitations on broadly granted mineral surface-use rights.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an injunction permitting Buffalo to build an electric transmission line across the Martins’ surface, interpreting the 1890 severance deed’s expansive surface-use and rights-of-way provisions to allow modern mining-related infrastructure and rejecting limitations based solely on unforeseeability or incidental off-tract benefit without proof of unreasonable use.


Buffalo Mining Co. v. Martin, 267 S.E.2d 721 (W. Va. 1980)