Legal Opinion

Heningkamp v. Valley Smokeless Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 8, 1922No. Appeal, No. 23PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaefer,

This action was brought by the surface owner of land, to recover damages from the owner of the underlying coal, for injuries to the surface, resulting from mining operations; the verdict was in plaintiff’s favor. Judgment was entered for defendant notwithstanding the verdict ; plaintiff appeals.

The dispute arises out of the wording of the granting clause in the deed from Kaufman (owner of both surface and coal) to Cauffiel, defendant’s predecessor in title, conveying all the minerals underlying the tract of land subsequently acquired from Kaufman by plaintiff,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stilley v. Pittsburgh-Buffalo Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  2. Harvey v. VandegriftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
  3. Hines v. Union Connellsville Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Ludwig v. LeonardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Robinson v. StoverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  2. Valley Smokeless Coal Co. v. Manufacturers' Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Daniels v. Lehigh Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Blough v. LochrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  5. Hoffman v. BuchananSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API