Williams v. Com., Dept. of Highways
| Decision Date | 15 November 1966 |
| Citation | 423 Pa. 219,223 A.2d 865 |
| Parties | James R. WILLIAMS and Anna M. Williams v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Lee C. McCandless, Butler, for appellees.
Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
James R. Williams and Anna M. Williams, his wife, (Williams), prior to March 11, 1963, were the owners of a 50 acre (approximately) tract of farm land, improved with a house and several farm buildings, located in Muddycreek Township, Butler County. On March 11, 1963, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through the Department of Highways, in connection with the construction of a new limited access highway, condemned 16.72 acres of the Williams property for the highway right-of-way. 1 That portion of the Williams property which was not actually taken by the Commonwealth was divided by the new highway so that approximately 21 acres were on one side and 14 acres on the other side of the new highway. Under 35 acres of the property a vein of mineable coal is located; a portion of this coal underlays the new highway right-of-way while the remaining coal underlays certain portions of the property divided by the new highway. 2
On Williams' petition, the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County appointed a board of viewers which, after hearing, made an award to Williams. From this award the Commonwealth took both an appeal and an exception. The exception was based on the fact that the board of viewers had taken into consideration, as an element of damage, the value of the coal underlying the property, an element of damage the ascertainment of which, under the Commonwealth's theory, would lie only in the jurisdiction of the State Mining Commission, (Commission). After the court had dismissed the Commonwealth's exception, the case came on for trial before a court and jury. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of.$34,506.00 3 in favor of Williams and against the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's motion for a new trial having been refused, judgment was entered on the verdict and the instant appeal was taken.
Upon this appeal questions involving the jurisdiction of the court below, alleged trial errors and the propriety of the verdict are raised.
Initially, the Commonwealth attacks the jurisdiction of the court below to determine the Amount of coal underlying the Williams' property which is necessary to be left in place to provide adequate support, vertically and laterally, for the new highway and the Value of such coal. It is the contention of the Commonwealth that the State Mining Commission has Exclusive jurisdiction to determine the Amount of coal necessary to be left in place for the support of the highway and the Value thereof and that the jurisdiction of the board of viewers is restricted to a determination only of the damages, resulting from the taking, to the surface of the land and to coal taken by the Commonwealth which is not necessary to the support of the highway.
Many years ago, in an attempt to insure adequate support for state highways and other Commonwealth lands, easements and rights-of-ways and to protect such highways, etc., from possible subsidence caused by the removal of coal lying thereunder and to further protect the public travelling upon such highways, the legislature created a tribunal called the State Mining Commission to be composed of the president judge of the county wherein the lands, easements or rights-of-way are situated, a member of the Public Utility Commission or an engineer designated by it, the Secretary of Mines or his designated representative, the head of the department, board or commission of the State government owning the lands, easements or rights-of-ways or his designated representative and an engineer designated by the owner or the person entitled to remove the coal. Inter alia, the legislature provided: '* * * This (C) ommission shall have Exclusive jurisdiction of the mining of coal under lands, easements and rights of ways purchased, condemned or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth and judicial powers * * *; to determine and assess damages, if any, for coal required by the said Commission to be left in place and benefits, if any, for improvements or betterments; * * *' (Emphasis supplied): Act of June 1, 1933, P.L. 1409, § 1, as amended, 52 P.S. § 1501.
The rationale employed by the court below in rejecting the Commonwealth's argument that the Commission had sole jurisdiction to determine the amount of coal necessary to be left in place for the support of this new highway and the value, if any, of such coal, was: (a) that the reason for the creation of the Commission by the legislature was to grant such Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the Mining of coal within or under the highway right-of-way and that the power to determine the amount of coal necessary to be left in place to adequately support the highway and to award damages therefor was Incidental; (b) the 'basic authority to assess damages, including coal required for surface support, remains in the Board of Viewers'; (c) 'the assessment of damages for coal required for surface support Only shifts to the Commission when the jurisdiction of the Commission is properly invoked.'; (d) that, in the case at bar, since 'the owner and the Commonwealth agree that the coal is needed for support' 4 it would be useless to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission and, since neither party elected to convene the Commission, the damages to be assessed by the board of viewers are the same as existed prior to the legislation creating the Commission. The teaching of our case law and the clear and unequivocal legislative intent expressed in the legislation which created this Commission and invested it with specific powers mandate our rejection of the rationale of the court below.
When the legislature created the Commission it expressly granted to that Commission 'exclusive jurisdiction' 5 to act for the protection of Commonwealth lands, easements and rights-of-ways from possible subsidence caused by the removal of coal thereunder; it did not restrict, either expressly or impliedly, the jurisdiction of the Commission to a determination of the amount of coal necessary to be left in place for adequate support of the highway. The powers exclusively given to the Commission were plenary in the field and included the power to determine what coal was required to adequately support the highway, what coal--unnecessary to the support of the highway--could be mined and the value of the coal to be left in place of which the owner of the coal or person entitled to remove such coal would be deprived.
In Glen Alden Coal Company Case, 350 Pa. 177, 182, 38 A.2d 37, 39 (1944), Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) Stern, speaking for a unanimous Court, stated: (Emphasis supplied). See also: Moffat Appeal, 400 Pa. 123, 126, 127, 161 A.2d 352 (1960).
Kerry v. Commonwealth, 381 Pa. 242, 113 A.2d 254 (1955), presented a situation in many respects similar to that in the case at bar. There, the property owner petitioned the court to appoint a board of viewers to assess damages for land and coal taken by the Commonwealth for the reconstruction and widening of a state highway; the Commonwealth filed preliminary objections on the ground that the exclusive jurisdiction to assess damages for coal required to be left in place to furnish support for the highway was vested in the Commission; the court sustained the Commonwealth's objections and then directed the board of viewers to proceed to assess damages to the surface of the land and the Commission to be convened for the purpose of assessing damages for the coal required to be left in place. Both parties joined in convening the Commission and, prior to a meeting of the Commission, the parties stipulated as to the amount of coal required to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial