Legal Opinion

Hornick v. Bethlehem Mines Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 21, 1932No. Appeal, 81PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Maxey,

Plaintiffs’ claim was based on the alleged drying up of springs of water on their farm of 154 acres. Plaintiffs contended that these springs became permanently dry because of the mining and removal of coal by the defendant underneath this farm. The defendant had the right to mine and remove this coal but was liable for any damages that mining did to the surface. Beneath plaintiffs’ farm were two seams of coal, the “B” and the “C” seams. The “B” seam lies approximately 500 feet below the surface and the “C” seam approximately 400 feet. In 1925 the defendant began…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HarmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
  2. Gray v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
  3. Weaver v. Berwind-White Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  4. Alwine v. Valley Smokeless Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Labbe v. Hill Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1964
  2. Sprague v. WalterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Hornick v. Bethlehem Mines Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Fox v. Personnel Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1965
  5. Watson v. Great Lakes Pipeline CompanySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1970

8 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