Livengood v. Stauffer

31 Pa. Super. 495, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 244
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 5, 1906
DocketAppeal, No. 131
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 Pa. Super. 495 (Livengood v. Stauffer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Livengood v. Stauffer, 31 Pa. Super. 495, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 244 (Pa. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The plaintiff is the owner of ninety-two acres of land in Fayette county, which is subject to the mining rights of the defendants Stauffer & Wiley, who own the coal and other minerals underlying thirty-three acres of said tract and have for many years operated a mine in said coal, known as the Home Works, in connection with a coke plant. The coal and land were both formerly owned by Jacob Sherrick, who in 1878 opened the mine and built the coke works and continued to operate them for some time. Sherrick adopted as the plan for freeing the mine from water a drain some 300 or 400 feet long extending out, under and through his land to a run on the surface of the Frick Coke Company’s land. This drain was covered except some thirty or forty feet at the lower end. The coke and coal works, “together with the right to mine, extract, remove and take away the entire amount and body of said coal and other minerals without being bound or required to leave any part thereof for the support of any part of said lands or the surface thereof in any manner whatsoever, and without being in any way liable for any damage or injury which may be done to said lands or to any water or water courses therein or thereon, or to anything growing on said lands or to any buildings erected or which may hereaftér be erected thereon,' by the mining or extracting or removal of the whole of said coal and other minerals as aforesaid, together with the right to make all such openings as may be desirable for the ventilation and drainage of the mines or pits used in the mining of said coal or other minerals, and to drain said mines or pits on or through any lands of the said grantor without being in any way liable for any damage or injury which may be done to said lands or to any water or water courses therein or thereon,” were granted and conveyed by Sherrick to Joseph R. Stauffer in 1881, and in the same year Stauffer conveyed an undivided interest therein to James W. Wiley, and since then and until the present time the firm of Stauffer & Wiley have continued to operate the mine and the Home Coke Works. In 1895 or 1896, the wooden box drain originally constructed by Sherrick was taken up and • a twelve-inch tile drain laid upon the same line by Stauffer & Wiley. In the fall of 1901 Stauffer & Wiley took up the twelve-inch tile drain [498]*498and deepened the ditch upon the same line, it being their intention to replace the tile drain taken up with a twenty-four-inch tile drain. When the teamsters began hauling the twenty-four-inch tile for the drain, the plaintiff refused to permit them to cross his land, and the construction was somewhat delayed. The twenty-four-inch tiles were finally placed in the ditch on the line of the original Sherrick drain, and the ditch was filled and the tile covered the entire distance through plaintiff’s land to a depth sufficient to permit of farming operations, in November, 1902, about the time this bill was filed.

The bill conceded the right of Stauffer & Wiley to drain the Home Works mine through the lands of the plaintiff, but 'averred that the waters from coal mines of the American Sheet Steel Company and the H. C. Frick Coke Company were also being conducted through the Home mine and discharged by the drain in question through plaintiff’s land, and prayed that a permanent injunction be granted to restrain the defendants from continuing and maintaining said trespass. The defendants filed an answer to which the plaintiff filed a replication, and evidence was heard by the court below upon the issue thus raised. The court below found that the water from the mine now owned by the American Sheet Steel Company had been discharged through this drain since 1890 and that the water from part of the mine of the H. C. Frick Coke Company had been discharged in the same way since 1898, but that under the facts as found by the court the plaintiff was estopped to question the right to so discharge said waters.

The court found as a fact that the natural drainage of the mine of the American Sheet Steel Company and that part of the Frick Coke Company mine which passed through the drain in question was through the Home mine and out'by way of this drain. The court further found that the Scottdale Iron & Steel Company, Limited, a limited partnership association, was organized about 1887; that plaintiff was a member of said company and was duly elected one of its board of managers at the annual meeting of July 15, 1889, and was re-elected a manager of said company annually thereafter, and served and qualified in that capacity until the sale of the company’s property to its present owners in 1900 ; that the Scottdale Iron & Steel Company, Limited, in 1887 purchased a tract of land containing 125 acres [499]*499adjoining and immediately north of the Home Works and Jacob Sherrick’s surface land, and in 1888 conveyed said tract to A. S. Livengood, the plaintiff, reserving, however, all the stone, coal and other minerals under the part thereof adjoining Jacob Sherrick’s land containing 107 acres, together with the right to mine and remove the entire amount and body of said coal, together with the right to make such openings as may be desirable for the ventilation and drainage of the mines, either on or beneath the surface of said lauds without being in any way -liable for any damage or injury which might be done to said lands. There was in the 107 acres of coal thus reserved by the Scott-dale Iron & Steel Company, Limited, a mine which had been opened and operated by a former owner. The water in this mine had then been disposed of by pumping it to the surface, whence it flowed over the 125-acre tract, to which the plaintiff acquired title in 1888, and the ninety-two-acre tract of Jacob Sherrick into the run where the drain in dispute also discharges. The mines were not again operated until 1890, at which time preparations to resume work were begun and a contract was entered into by the Iron and Steel Company, Limited, with the plaintiff, Livengood, to mine and supply them with the coal required for their use; and all subsequent operations in this mine, until the sale to the American Sheet Steel Company, were conducted by Livengood, the plaintiff. At a meeting of the board of managers of the Iron and Steel Company, held October 17, 1890, the following motion was adopted: “ That the officers of this company be empowered to negotiate and enter into an agreement with the Home Works for the best terms obtainable for the drainage of the water of the company’s mines into the Home Works; ” the plaintiff was present at this meeting and as a manager acquiesced in the action of the board. The mine at that time was flooded with water. Pursuant to this resolution an agreement was made with Stauffer & Wiley, the owners of the Home mine, and bore holes were driven at various places in the coal between the Scottdale Iron and Steel Company’s mine and the Home mines, through which the water in the former passed into the latter where it was cared for by Stauffer & Wiley and conducted by ditches into and discharged through the drain in dispute. By this arrangement, which he as one of the board of managers of the Scottdale Iron & Steel Company had author[500]*500ized, Livengood was enabled to begin mining operations under Ms contract with the company, he and the company were relieved of the burden of pumping the mines, and his surface lands were protected from any injury that might have resulted from the discharge thereon of the water pumped from the mines.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Criswell v. Hulings
200 A. 683 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Gailey v. Wilkinsburg Real Estate Trust Co.
129 A. 445 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Pa. Super. 495, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livengood-v-stauffer-pasuperct-1906.