The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-06-20
way that was most picturesque and at.

way that was most picturesque and at
tractive.
About two miles east of It's headwaters,
the Pennsylvania Coal company were the
owners OF large tract of land underlaid
with anthracite coal Except couple OF
tunnels driven little way into the upper
vein there had been no development OF
the land, but about the time the Sander
son residence was completed the company
sunk n shaft to the lower veins, and EN-
tered upon active mining. In doing so
they encountered as usual In all deep
mining. large quantity of water which
they raised to the surface by pumps and
discharged into the headwaters of the
stream. All mine water Is impregnated
with sulphurlc acid. and as the quantity
discharged from the mine was soon equal
to the flow of the brook 1t was not long
before Its waters were entirely corrupted.
For the loss of the stream and the cor
roson and destruction of their pipes and
plumbing the plaintiffs brought an action
for damages
DECISION REVERSED.
At the first trial compulsory non-suit
was entered on the ground that 1t was a
case of damnum abscue injuria, for which
there could be no recovery; but this was
promptly reversed by the Supreme court
tSandcrson VS.. Coal Company. 81 Pa. 4Ol)
in an opinion by Woodward j.. the gist OF
which will be found in the following ex-
tract:
"The water in the mine of the defend
ant" says the learned Judge was in the
ground before the culliery existed. but the
drift and shaft collected 1t in such vol
times. and the mining operations made its
election necessary in such direction
as to render what was harmless In Its
natural state. source of material dis
comfort, mischief and disaster. tndoubt-
edly the defendants were engaged in a
perfectly lawful business in which large
expenditures had been made, and with
which widespread interests were con-
nected, but however laudable the indus
try may be- it's owners are still subject
to the rule that their property cannot be
so used as to intlict injury on the prop
erty of their neighbors.'
10 the opinion of the rest of the court.
Judge PaXson registered a vigorous dis
sent (6 W. N. c., 1Ol. subsequently re-
ported in 1l3 Pa. 1867; and as 1t marks
the beginning Of that for which the case
now stands. | will refer to 1t briefly to
show it's drift
After adverting to the class of cases
with reference to tine fouling of streams
with nOXiOus substances. which he held
did not apply. and to the English mine
cases, the Authority of which he qucs-
toned. referring to the character of the
community in which the case arose. the
learned judge says:
"'rhe plaintiffs knew when they pur-
chased their property that they were in
mining region. they were in a city born
of mining operations. and which had be-
come rich and populOus as a result there
of. They knew that all the mountain
streams in that section were affected by
mine water, or were liable to be. Hav-
ing enjoyed the advantages which coal
mining confers, ! see no great hardship
in their also accepting the Inconvenience
necessarily resulting from the business"
WATER a FREE AGENT.
"And again: 1T is not alleged, nor is
there any proof, that the defendants did
anything to foul the water. 1t flows from
the drift just as it fell from the clouds,
excepting in so far as it had been affect
ed by the coal and other mineral sub
stances with which it came in contact
after percolating through the surface
SOIL
Aluding to the right of the coal COM
pany to develop the resources of it's prop
crty, he says: ut must be conceded the
defendants have a right to mine their
coal. 1t is equally clear that they have
right to free their mine from water by
pumping, If necessary without it no
mine can be operated for any considerable
length of time. A man may use and ell
joy his own property in n lawful manner,
and If in doing SO, without negligence, an
unavoidable loss occurs to his neighbOr.
it is damnum abscue inj,ria. If in en-
cavating my land for lawful purpose.
as in digging cellar or opening quar-
ry. strike a spring which flows out over
the lower land of my neighbor l am no
more responsible for such flow than If the
water had fallen from the clouds upon
my land and then run off upon his
Much is made in the dissent of the dis
astrous business results to follow from
holding to the doctrine Of the majority,
but it will serve no useful purpose to
further refer to it. '.
PROCEEDING WAS LAWFUL.
1t will thus appear that the difference
between the views advanced on the one
side and the other, was Il narrow one.
The majority considered it the ordinary
case of the fouling of a water course with
foreign substances and applied the pre-.
vaiing rule while the dissenting member
contended that the coal company were
not chargeable with the acid character of
the water which came from the mine as
nature compounded 1t, and in dscharging
it upon the surface and allowing it to