Mineral rights

[axholme1234]

My father said his father had a dispute with Earl Fitzwilliam about the mineral rights under his house, which my grandfather won because his house was built on the course of the old river Don and you can't own the mineral rights under a river. Is this likely to be true?

[Kiltpin]

My father said his father had a dispute with Earl Fitzwilliam about the mineral rights under his house, which my grandfather won because his house was built on the course of the old river Don and you can't own the mineral rights under a river. Is this likely to be true?

I am dubious. Mines have been carved out under whole villages before - why should a river make any difference? If we ignore the possibility of family misunderstanding, can you please tell us when and where this was supposed to have happened?

Regards

Chas

[Guy Etchells]

My father said his father had a dispute with Earl Fitzwilliam about the mineral rights under his house, which my grandfather won because his house was built on the course of the old river Don and you can't own the mineral rights under a river. Is this likely to be true?

Unlikely but it would really depend on when and exactly what minerals you are referring to (Even what constitutes a mineral has changed over time.
With most legal disputes the devil is in the detail.
Cheers
Guy

[KGarrad]

Mineral rights may be written into the deeds of the house.

When I owned a house in Somerset my deeds specifically mentioned mineral rights.

[mike175]

Sounds unlikely to me. I think mineral rights are usually covered by a clause somewhere in the sale contract, lease or tenancy agreement. I suspect rivers have been diverted in the past if there were valuable minerals to be quarried there.

[KGarrad]

The FitzWilliam family operated coal mines, reputedly employing over 2000 men at their peak.
So it is very likely that mineral rights (specifically for coal) were kept by the family.

Coal mines run under towns, villages, rivers and even the sea!
So retention of the mineral rights would have been key to expansion.

[josey]

In Scottish feus, mineral rights underneath were always reserved to the superior, though theoretically the land had to be put back to the original state if he decided to exercise the right. Only if the land was sold as an outright disposition were mineral rights transferred to an individual. The superior also owned mineral rights under river beds - to the centre if the river was a boundary between estates. If the river changed course naturally the boundary changed with it, but if the river was diverted an exchange of equal areas of land [contract of excambion] was made.

ADDED: Have you looked in the newspaper archive to see if there were any reports of the case, axholme1234?

[axholme1234]

Thank you to everyone who has posted a comment. I agree it seems unlikely. In my village in the Midlands, the coal mine went under the river and the Norman church. It just seems an unlikely thing for my father to have made up. The disputed land was in Luddington on the old river Don on the Yorks/Lincs border. Dad even said that it went to the House of Lords (maybe because of Earl Fitzwilliam?). I guess it would have been around 1900, but I haven't tried the newspaper archives because it may have been anytime between, say 1890 and 1930.

[avm228]

If it went to the House of Lords it was because that was the highest court in the land, rather than because of who the parties were.

It would help to know your grandfather's name if he was a party to this litigation.

Also - you can search newspaper archives without dates, if you know other search terms such as names.

I can't immediately see anything relevant in the official law reports, but can look again if a name is provided.