Pantall v. Rochester & Pittsburg Coal & Iron Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 16, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of Superior Court, April Term, 1901, No. 136, affirming judgment of C. P. Jefferson Co., Nov. T., 1899, No. 97, in case of Theophilus Pantall v. Rochester & Pitts-burg Coal and Iron Company. Appeal from Superior Court. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Error assigned was the judgment of the lower court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
It was held in Noonan v. Pardee, 200 Pa. 474, that where there has been a horizontal division of land, and the owner of the subjacent estate removes coal or other mineral without leaving sufficient support, in consequence of which the surface sinks, the cause of action is the removal of the coal, not the subsidence of the surface, which is only consequence and evidence of the wrongful act of removal, The subject is one of inherent difficulty. On the one hand the surface owner may suffer no actual damage, and be in entire ignorance of any invasion of *160his rights…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Noonan v. PardeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Hileman v. HilemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Robb v. BighamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Fisher v. FarleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sustrik v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Nadeau v. Caribou Water, Light & Power Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
- Huntzinger v. WilemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Benjamin v. HolgateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Commonwealth v. ComportoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.