Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
Oklahoma Supreme Court · Decided December 11, 1962 · Core case
Full citation
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 1962 OK 267, 382 P.2d 109.
Quote pages are pages of 382 P.2d 109, so quotes and pinpoints cite it; for 1962 OK 267, find the paragraph in the opinion.
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.
Willie Peevyhouse and Lucille Peevyhouse
farm ownersplaintiffs in error
Garland Coal & Mining Company
coal mining companydefendant in error
Brief
Facts
Willie and Lucille Peevyhouse owned a farm containing coal deposits. In November, 1954, they leased the premises to Garland Coal and Mining Company for five years for coal mining purposes. The parties contemplated a strip-mining operation in which coal would be taken from surface pits instead of underground mine shafts. In addition to standard lease covenants, the company specifically agreed to perform certain restorative and remedial work at the end of the lease period. This work involved moving many thousands of cubic yards of dirt. Expert witnesses estimated the cost of the work at about $29,000.00, but the Peevyhouses sued for $25,000.00. During the trial, the parties stipulated that all other covenants had been fully carried out, and the company conceded it had not done the remedial work. Over the plaintiffs' objections, the company introduced expert testimony on the diminution in value of the farm. On the most liberal view of that evidence, the diminution in value from the unperformed work was $300.00.
Issue
Where a mining lessee breaches a contract covenant to perform remedial restorative work that is incidental to the main purpose of the lease, and where the economic benefit to the lessor from performance is grossly disproportionate to the cost of performance, is the measure of damages the cost of performance or the diminution in value?
Holding
Because the remedial work was incidental to the main purpose of marketing coal, and because the estimated $29,000.00 cost of performance was grossly disproportionate to the $300.00 increase in the farm's market value, the Peevyhouses could recover only the $300.00 diminution in value rather than the cost of performance. The jury's $5000.00 verdict was excessive, and the judgment was reduced to $300.00.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/peevyhouse-v-garland-coal-and-mining-co