Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 73
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
MINES AND MINING OPERATIONS.
did not support the conclusion that any irreparable injury to the
streets in question is likely to result from the mining operations or
that the mining operations are likely to occasion any peril to the
safety of the traveling public in the lawful use of the streets.
City of Scranton v, Scranton Coal Co. (Pennsylvania), 100 Atlantic 813.
CONVEYANCE WITHOUT RIGHT OF SURFACE SUPPORT.
A deed by an owner conveying coal lands reserved the coal as
follows: "All the coal and minerals beneath the surface of and
belonging to said lot, with the sole right and privilege to mine and
remove the same by any subterranean process incident to the busi-
ness of mining without thereby incurring, in any event whatever,
any liability for injury caused or damage done to the surface of
said lot or to the buildings or improvements which now are or here-
after may be put thereon, provided that no mine or shaft shall be
intentionally opened or any mining fixtures established on the surface
of said premises." The grantee subsequently conveyed the lot
with the appurtenances, together with the right to mine and remove
the coal, but the deed contained no provision that the coal should
be removed without liability for damages done to the surface. The
lot was subsequently conveyed to the complainant and the deed
recited: "Without, however, granting or conveying to the Lacka-
wanna Iron & Steel Company the right to let down, injure, or destroy
the surface." The deed further recited: "That it was the purpose
and intent of this indenture to vest in the said party of the second
part, his heirs and assigns inter alia, the right or privilege of surface
support hitherto withheld." The language of the deed showed that
the grantor took pains not to include the right of removal without
liability for injury to the surface, and it would be a strange con-
struction which would hold that a valuable property right passed
as an appurtenance when the transfer of any such right was carefully
avoided in describing the particular thing conveyed. The right to
surface support was valuable in connection with the large tract of
land held by the' coal company, the grantor, and this fact was prob-
ably taken into account both in the sale of surface and in the sale of
the coal, the latter presumably selling for a less price than it would
have brought had the right to remove it without leaving support
for the surface above included. If the coal company retained a
considerable amount of surface land when it disposed of the coal,
it was manifestly to its interest to retain for itself and for the benefit
of future purchasers the right of surface support. The language
of the deed does not authorize the removal of the coal without lia-
bility for injury to the surface.
Penman v. Jones (Pennsylvania), 100 Atlantic 1043, pp. 1044-1046.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Thompson, Joseph Wesley. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917, report, December 1917; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38745/m1/87/: accessed March 30, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.