## Facts

- Six Buchanan sisters acquired a tract of land in 1910, including surface and coal; ownership later devolved among surviving sisters and descendants.
- In 1934, the sisters divided the surface into northern and southern portions by deed while expressly reserving their coal interests, leaving the coal owned in common.
- In June 1934, the four coal owners executed a written mining agreement giving Ralph McFadden the right to mine coal under a specified 15-acre portion of the northern tract.
- The 1934 instrument referred to the arrangement as a “lease,” required minimum annual production, and provided that failure to meet the minimum rendered the “lease” void; it also restricted the lessors from issuing other adjoining coal leases while McFadden operated.
- Between 1937 and 1945, deaths in the family transferred coal interests to remaining sisters and then to descendants.
- In August 1945, all persons holding any coal interest executed a second agreement granting McFadden the right to mine the remaining coal under the tract (outside the 15 acres), with compensation structured as royalties and with no express fixed term.
- Hummel later acquired certain heirs’ interests and sought an equity decree for partition of the coal (and surface), arguing McFadden held only mining/lease rights subject to termination rather than a fee simple in coal.
- The trial court held the 1934 and 1945 instruments conveyed fee simple title in the coal to McFadden and denied relief premised on that characterization.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1934 and 1945 coal mining instruments conveyed a fee simple estate in coal in place to McFadden or instead granted mining rights in the nature of a lease/profit.
2. If McFadden did not hold a fee in the coal, whether the coal owners’ successors could pursue partition without being barred by the premise that a coal fee is not lost by “abandonment.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court.
- The court held the agreements did not convey a fee simple in the coal in place.
- The court characterized McFadden’s interest as contractual mining rights akin to a lease or profit rather than ownership of the coal estate.
- Because McFadden lacked a coal fee, the trial court’s denial of partition based on fee ownership and nonabandonment was erroneous, and the matter required further proceedings consistent with the proper characterization.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania distinguishes a conveyance of “coal in place” (which can create a separate fee estate) from an instrument granting the right to mine and remove coal (typically a lease/profit).
- An instrument’s substance controls: courts construe the writing as a whole, not by isolated words suggesting “grant” or “lease.”
- Features commonly indicating a lease/profit rather than a mineral fee include royalty-based compensation, operational covenants, forfeiture/voiding conditions for nonperformance, and language framing the right as mining and removal.
- A coal fee generally is not terminated by mere abandonment, but mining rights created by contract may terminate under their conditions or applicable law, leaving the underlying coal ownership unaffected.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the view that the coal mining agreements transferred a fee simple coal estate to the operator, holding instead that they granted mining rights resembling a lease/profit; therefore, the successors to the coal owners were not barred from seeking partition on the theory that an indefeasible coal fee had been conveyed.


Hummel v. McFadden, 150 A.2d 856 (Pa. 1959)