## Facts

- In 1905, predecessors in title to a 90-acre tract in Knott County, Kentucky conveyed coal rights by a broad-form mineral deed granting surface use “for all purposes deemed necessary or convenient” to mine and remove coal.
- LeRoy Martin and his wife later acquired a 10-acre surface parcel from the tract, containing their home, outbuildings, and garden on bottom land.
- Kentucky River Coal Corporation owned the coal rights under the deed and leased mining operations to several coal companies.
- The Martins alleged the mineral owner and lessees were preparing to conduct strip and/or auger mining on the 10-acre parcel.
- The Martins contended strip and auger mining were not within the parties’ contemplation in 1905 and would destroy the surface and improvements.

## Issues

1. Whether a 1905 broad-form mineral deed authorizes coal removal by strip or auger mining.
2. If strip or auger mining is authorized, whether the mineral owner must pay surface-destruction damages absent “oppressive, arbitrary, wanton or malicious” conduct.

## Decision

- The court held the broad-form mineral deed authorized coal removal by strip and auger mining.
- The court held the mineral owner was not required to pay damages for surface destruction caused by such mining, unless the operations were conducted in an oppressive, arbitrary, wanton, or malicious manner.
- The court affirmed the declaration permitting strip/auger mining and reversed the portion of the judgment imposing a general duty to pay surface-destruction damages.

## Legal Principles

- Broad-form mineral deed language granting surface use as “necessary or convenient” permits later-developed mining methods, including strip and auger mining, when used to effectuate the mineral grant.
- Under Kentucky precedent, the mineral estate is dominant and may use the surface in the usual and practical manner to extract minerals, even if surface injury is substantial.
- Surface-destruction damages are not recoverable for authorized mining operations unless the mineral owner’s conduct is oppressive, arbitrary, wanton, or malicious.
- Courts treat the scope of broad-form deeds as a contract-interpretation question; changes based on environmental or social policy are for the legislature rather than judicial revision of settled deed constructions.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the established interpretation of broad-form mineral deeds: the mineral owner could strip or auger mine under the deed and owed no compensation for ordinary, necessary surface destruction, subject only to liability for oppressive, arbitrary, wanton, or malicious mining conduct.


Martin v. Ky. Oak Mining Co., 429 S.W.2d 395 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968)