## Facts

- J. W. Langford (lessor) entered into a mineral lease granting Tom Hughes (lessee) the right to mine and remove coal in return for royalty payments.
- The lease contained a forfeiture provision stating that if Hughes committed “waste” or left mineable coal in the land, the lease would become void.
- After mining began, Langford complained that Hughes operated the mine wastefully and improperly.
- Langford offered testimony, including from witnesses familiar with mining, alleging deficiencies such as inadequate ventilation, poor mining practices, water accumulation that damaged or destroyed coal, and the leaving of merchantable coal in place.
- Langford also pointed to low royalties as circumstantial support that the mine was not being properly operated or that recoverable coal was being lost.
- Hughes denied committing waste and presented opposing testimony that the mine’s conditions and methods were generally consistent with other comparable mines in the area.
- Hughes attributed some of the complained-of conditions to a several-month shutdown caused by earlier litigation brought by Langford’s son, which Hughes claimed interrupted operations and contributed to later problems.
- Hughes asserted Langford should be barred on equitable grounds (including estoppel-type arguments) given the family’s prior litigation conduct and Langford’s acceptance of royalties, and Hughes filed a counterclaim related to royalties Langford had received.
- The trial court refused to decree a forfeiture or cancel the lease and ruled for Hughes; Langford appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence established waste or improper mining sufficient to justify enforcing the lease’s forfeiture clause and canceling the coal lease.
2. Whether a court of equity should decree forfeiture where the proof on alleged waste is disputed and the trial court found the lessee’s operations were not sufficiently wrongful.
3. Whether Langford’s conduct (including acceptance of royalties and the effect of prior litigation by his son) barred or weighed against the requested forfeiture and related relief.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Hughes.
- The court declined to cancel the lease under the forfeiture clause, treating forfeiture as a harsh remedy not favored in equity.
- Given the conflicting proof about mining conditions and practices, and evidence supporting Hughes’s account, the court would not overturn the trial court’s findings.
- Because forfeiture was not warranted on the record, the court did not need to grant Langford the requested cancellation and related relief.

## Legal Principles

- Contractual forfeiture provisions are disfavored, strictly construed against the party seeking forfeiture, and equity is slow to enforce forfeiture.
- A court of equity generally will not decree forfeiture unless the breach is clearly shown and sufficiently serious to justify termination rather than a less drastic remedy.
- When evidence about alleged waste under a mineral lease is conflicting, an appellate court gives substantial deference to the trial court’s resolution of factual disputes if supported by competent evidence.
- In assessing claimed “waste” in mine operations, courts may consider whether the challenged practices are materially worse than ordinary practices in similar mines and whether intervening events (such as shutdowns) contributed to conditions complained of.
- A lessor’s course of conduct, including acceptance of royalties and involvement in prior litigation affecting operations, may weigh against granting the harsh remedy of forfeiture.

## Conclusion

Langford sought to terminate Hughes’s coal lease under a clause making the lease void upon waste or leaving mineable coal, but the trial court found Hughes’s operation did not justify forfeiture, and the appellate court affirmed because forfeitures are disfavored in equity and the record contained conflicting evidence with competent support for the lessee’s position.


Langford v. Hughes, 214 S.W.2d 1011 (1948)