## Facts

- In 1912, J. C. Shepherd and his wife executed a severance deed conveying coal and other minerals to American Trust Company while retaining the surface estate; Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. (P & M) later became successor to the mineral title.
- The 1912 deed granted the mineral owner extensive surface-use rights tied to mining, preparing coal for market, and removing it, including rights to build roads, tunnels, canals, and structures “necessary or convenient” for mining-related business.
- The deed expressly contemplated surface use connected not only to coal taken from the granted land, but also coal “from said lands or any other lands,” and allowed transport of materials, employees, and equipment “to and from said lands or other lands.”
- P & M operated a large mining operation in Fayette and Tuscaloosa Counties, Alabama, with approximately 6,000 mineral acres dedicated to the North River No. 1 Mine and substantially more mineral acreage under its control in the area.
- P & M’s existing coal-processing pond (used to manage sediment from coal processing) had become full and unusable, and P & M determined a new sediment pond was needed to continue operations.
- Engineering and siting considerations led P & M to select a 9.4-acre area on the Shepherd surface tract for construction and operation of a sediment pond and related facilities, including an access road, pump site, dams, and electrical lines.
- The pond design involved technology and operational practices that were not available when the 1912 deed was executed, and the pond would serve coal processed from much of P & M’s regional operations, not solely coal mined under the Shepherd tract.
- Shepherd and related surface-interest holders and lessees objected and sought to prevent P & M’s use of the 9.4 acres.
- P & M sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for injunctive relief to stop interference with the planned construction and use.
- The district court issued a temporary injunction restraining the surface owners and their lessees from interfering; on appeal, the parties stipulated that the injunction would be treated as final for purposes of resolving the dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1912 severance deed’s express surface-use grants authorized P & M to use 9.4 acres of the Shepherd surface to construct and operate a sediment pond and related facilities.
2. Whether the deed language allowing surface use for removing and transporting coal “from said lands or any other lands” permitted P & M to use the Shepherd surface to support mining and processing associated with P & M’s broader operations beyond the tract.
3. Whether a surface use employing mining-support methods not known in 1912 could still fall within deed language authorizing uses “necessary or convenient” for mining, preparation for market, and related business connected with coal.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction (treated by stipulation as a final judgment).
- The court held that the deed’s broad, express grants—particularly its “necessary or convenient” phrasing and its repeated references to coal and activities connected with “other lands”—authorized P & M’s planned use of the 9.4 acres for the sediment pond, access road, pump site, dams, and electrical lines.
- The court accepted that the pond would serve P & M’s integrated mining and processing operations beyond the Shepherd tract and concluded that this was within the deed’s express authorization.

## Legal Principles

- Disputes between surface owners and mineral owners turn first on the text of the severance deed; when deed language is clear, courts enforce the rights granted and the rights reserved as written.
- A mineral conveyance may include express surface-use rights that exceed what would exist under an implied right of reasonable surface use.
- Deed language authorizing surface uses “necessary or convenient” for mining, preparing minerals for market, and conducting mining-related business can permit construction and operation of substantial support facilities when those facilities serve the mining enterprise described in the grant.
- When a severance deed expressly authorizes activities connected with coal “from said lands or any other lands,” the mineral owner may use the surface tract to support mining and processing tied to other tracts as well, not merely the minerals directly beneath the surface tract.
- Modern mining-support methods may be permitted where the deed’s functional language is broad enough to cover them and the use remains connected to mining, preparation, and marketing activities described in the grant.
- Even with broad deed language, the mineral owner’s surface use remains bounded by the deed’s terms and by the requirement that the use be tied to the mining and marketing purposes specified in the conveyance.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed an injunction preventing the surface owners from interfering with P & M’s construction and operation of a sediment pond and related facilities on 9.4 acres because the 1912 severance deed expressly granted broad surface-use rights, including rights “necessary or convenient” for mining and preparation for market and rights connected to coal from “any other lands,” which permitted the surface use to support P & M’s regional mining and processing activities.


Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Shepherd, 888 F.2d 1533 (1989)