The land in question was set aside by the state for school purposes. For some time prior to 1881 one Bailey had been in possession. At that time he and his children, to whom he had deeded parts of the land, conveyed the mineral interests to a grantee from whom plaintiff claims. At the time of the conveyance the evidence was insufficient to show title by adverse possession in Bailey. Bailey and his grantees, from whom defendant claims, remained in possession until this action was brought. The limitation ceased running against the state by an act of the legislature at which time, the evidence shows, the grantees of Bailey had acquired title by adverse possession of the surface. In 1925 the owners of the surface received a patent from the state. Plaintiff had never worked the minerals and there had never been any actual intrusion on the minerals until defendant commenced to mine shortly before the present action was brought. Held, that when there is a conveyance of the minerals, with no physical severance of the minerals by anyone, the grantor and his privies will presumptively continue to hold possession of the minerals for the grantee and his privies so that possession of the surface and minerals for the requisite number of years will ripen title in each as against third parties. Tennessee Coal I. & R. R. v. Brewer, (C. C. A. 5th, 1937) 92 F. (2d) 804.
John M. Ulman,
ADVERSE POSSESSION - SEVERANCE OF MINERALS AND SURFACE - ADVERSE POSSESSION AS AFFECTING TITLE TO THE MINERALS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol37/iss2/9