Oakwood, Etc., Coal Corp. v. Meadows, Record No. 2912.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2912. |
| Parties | OAKWOOD SMOKELESS COAL CORPORATION v. ALTA MEDIE MEADOWS AND HENRY MEADOWS. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Hudgins, Gregory, Eggleston and Spratley, JJ.
1. MINES AND MINERALS — Operation — Causing Spring to Become Dry. — If, in mining in the usual and ordinary way, subterranean streams or percolations of water which feed a spring on the surface are intercepted, thereby causing the spring to sink or become dry, there is no liability therefor upon the owner and operator of the mine.
2. MINES AND MINERALS — Conveyances — Rights Appurtenant to Grants of Minerals. — The incidental rights of the miner which are appurtenant to the grant of the mineral, are to be gauged by the necessities of the particular case, and therefore vary with changed conditions and circumstances. He may occupy so much of the surface, adopt such machinery and modes of mining and establish such auxiliary appliances as are ordinarily used in such business, as may be reasonably necessary for the profitable and beneficial enjoyment of his property. But he is not limited to such appliances as were in existence when the grant was made, but may keep pace with the progress of society and modern inventions.
3. MINES AND MINERALS — Operation — Permitting Natural Flow of Mine Water over Land. — The right to mine coal is not a nuisance in itself but is a right incident to the ownership of the coal property, and when exercised in the ordinary manner, and with due care, the owner cannot be held for permitting the natural flow of mine water over his own land, into the watercourse by means of which the natural drainage of the country is effected.
4. MINES AND MINERALS — Conveyances — Things Appurtenant to Mine Pass under Lease. — Those things which are appurtenant to a mine will pass under a lease of the mine as a necessary part thereof, although not mentioned in the lease.
5. MINES AND MINERALS — Operation — Destruction of Springs or Wells. — Mining operations, being a reasonable use of land, do not, in general, make one carrying on such operations liable because percolating waters are intercepted or drawn away so as to destroy or injure springs or wells belonging to the owner of the surface or of adjoining lands.
6. DEEDS — Construction — From Deed Itself. — The construction of deeds is to be gathered from the four corners of the deed.
7. CONTRACTS — Construction — Against Grantor. — The language of a written contract should be construed strongly against the grantor.
8. LANDLORD AND TENANT — Construction of Lease — In Favor of Lessee. — As a general rule, where doubt exists as to the meaning of lease restrictions as to the use of property, such provisions are to be resolved in favor of the lessee and against the lessor.
9. MINES AND MINERALS — Operation — Pollution of Spring by Percolating Mine Water — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for a spring which was polluted by drainage from a mine, defendant was the owner of mining rights on land adjacent to that owned by plaintiffs, and both parties derived title from a common source. In the deed to defendant's predecessor, the right was given to remove coal, oil and gas without leaving any support for overlying strata, together with all other usual mining privileges necessary for the full enjoyment of the premises granted. The water which polluted the spring was percolating water, which dripped from the roof of the mine and flowed through a ventilating gallery, and from the mouth of the mine ran by gravity down a mountain and seeped into the spring.
Held: That defendant had the right to bring this percolating water by gravity to the mouth of the mine and there let it flow where gravity took it, and plaintiffs took their land with this burden and the injury which they suffered with damnum absque injuria.
10. MINES AND MINERALS — Conveyances — Right of Drainage. — The right of drainage is fundamentally inherent where a mine owner is given the right to all other usual mine privileges necessary for the full enjoyment of the premises granted.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Buchanan county. Hon. Alfred A. Skeen, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
F. H. Combs and William A. Stuart, for the plaintiff in error.
S. H. & Geo. C. Sutherland, for the defendants in error.
By notice of motion for judgment, the plaintiffs, Alta Medie Meadows and Henry Meadows, set out that they are the owners in fee of certain lands in Buchanan county and that the defendant is the owner of mining rights on the land which adjoins them. That mine, they say, is now being operated and that before its operation they had access to and used water from a spring on their land, which water was in all respects wholesome and palatable. They say that now it has become polluted by drainage from this mine and unfit for human consumption. Damages are claimed. This issue was submitted to a jury. Plaintiffs recovered a verdict for $700, which verdict, over the objection of the defendant, was confirmed by the trial court and is now before us on a writ of error.
"It is agreed between counsel, and so stipulated and made a part of the record that both plaintiffs and defendant claim title under John K. Ratliff."
The defendant traces its title back to a deed of October 31, 1904, by and between John K. Ratliff, party of the first part, and E. K. Boyd, party of the second part, recorded April 14, 1906. In it for a valuable consideration Ratliff conveyed to Boyd the right to mine coal, oil and gas. In that deed this appears:
The proposition before us in its simplest form is this:
Could Ratliff, if he were living and owned and used this spring, be heard to complain that it was damaged by drainage from this mine?
In due course, mining was begun, and at a point which seemed to the company's engineers suitable and convenient to its successful operation, a shaft was driven into the mountain.
Along the gallery in which coal is actually beig dug runs a duplicate gallery with its separate opening on the surface. Into this deplicate gallery air is forced by fans and comes out where men are working; otherwise the air there would be what might be described as at "dead end" and would become stale and poisonous. This method of ventilation is common practice and is required by statute. See Code, section 1852.
Whenever for any cause ventilation becomes defective workmen must be instructed to withdraw immediately and may not return until ventilation has been restored. Code, section 1854.
A mining inspector is required to examine into the condition of the mine as to ventilation and drainage and to see that proper provision is made for them and for the general safety of the workmen. Code, section 1849.
In the instant case, Mr. St. Clair, a State mine inspector, upon inspection, found that the ventilation was bad. A necessary air shaft was installed under his direction and located at the place recommended by him. All that was done was done in due course of a mining operation and was done for the safety of men working there and in accordance with statutory requirements.
The water in this case was percolating water, which dripped from the roof of the mine and flowed through this ventilating gallery in volume about sufficient to fill a two-inch pipe, and from the mouth of the mine ran by gravity down the mountain. It did not run directly into the spring but did seep into it in quantities sufficient to make it unpalatable.
The situation, so far as the rights of the parties are concerned, does not differ from what it would be if this water flowed by gravity along the floor of the mining shaft itself and down the mountainside instead of through an air gallery.
In the Ratliff deed, Boyd was given the right to remove coal, oil and gas without leaving any support for overlying strata, together with all other usual mining privileges necessary for the full enjoyment of the premises granted. In the notice of motion on complaint is made of the way coal was taken. Negligence charged is that the mining company collected polluted waters and discharged them in such manner that they reached and destroyed for all practical purposes a valuable spring. In this it differs from Stonegap Colliery Co. Hamilton, 119 Va. 271, 89 S.E. 305, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 60. There negligence rests upon the fact that the mining company left insufficient pillars or other support to prevent the overlying strata from breaking.
Judge Burks, then a court reporter, in a headnote to that case said:
"If, in mining in the usual and ordinary way, subterranean streams or percolations of water which feed a spring on the surface are intercepted, thereby causing the spring to sink or become dry,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oakwood Smokeless Coal Corp. v. Meadows
... ... on a writ of error."It is agreed between counsel, and so stipulated and made a part of the record that both plaintiffs and defendant claim title under John K. Ratliff."The defendant traces its ... It there appears that the plaintiff sought to enjoin the erection of hotels, miners' homes, etc., and charged that those structures constituted a cloud upon its title. An injunction was refused ... ...