Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 

Supreme Court of the United States

1922

Chapter

30-31

Title

Power to Regulate Land Use

Page

612

Topic

Something

Quick Notes

o         Mahon purchased a house and property, where he only had surface rights to the property.

o         The deed conveyed reserved the right to remove all the coal under the property to the coal company.

o         Mahon took the premises with risk and waived all claim for damages that may arise.

o         The State of Pennsylvania passed a statute forbidding the mining of coal in a manner such to cause subsidence to any structure used for human habitation or where such was located within 150 ft of the mine.

Plaintiffs Argument:

o         The statute forbids mining of coal which would cause the subsidence of the Pl - house on the surface and is a legitimate exercise of police powers in protecting the safety of the public.

Defendants Argument:

o         The statute would effectively destroy the Df - rights that it retained under the K for the sale of property, and if valid would constitute a taking.

Rule

o         Under the 5th Amendment, private property that is wanted for public use shall not be taken without just compensation.

o         Property may be regulated to a certain extent, but if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.

Holding

o         The Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Kohler Act was not a legitimate exercise of police power, but rather was an unconstitutional taking of defendant's contractual and property rights because it served to take away those valid rights without adequate and just compensation

Book Name

Fundamentals of Modern Property Law: Rabin; Kwall, Kwall.  ISBN:  978-1-59941-053-1.

Issue

o         Whether at States police power can destroy previously existing rights (mining company) conveyed in a deed?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         The Court of Common Pleas found that if not restrained the defendant would cause the damage to prevent which the bill was brought, but denied an injunction, holding that the statute if applied to this case would be unconstitutional

State

o         Held that the statute was a legitimate exercise of the police power and directed a decree for the plaintiffs

Supreme

o         The Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Kohler Act was not a legitimate exercise of police power, but rather was an unconstitutional taking of defendant's contractual and property rights because it served to take away those valid rights without adequate and just compensation.

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Reasoning/Key Phrase

Rules

Pl - Pennsylvania Coal Co

Df - Mahon

Description

o         Mahon purchased a house and property, where he only had surface rights to the property.

o         The deed conveyed reserved the right to remove all the coal under the property to the coal company.

o         Mahon took the premises with risk and waived all claim for damages that may arise.

o          The State of Pennsylvania passed a statute forbidding the mining of coal in a manner such to cause subsidence to any structure used for human habitation or where such was located within 150 ft of the mine.

Court of Common Pleas

o         The Court of Common Pleas found that if not restrained the defendant would cause the damage to prevent which the bill was brought, but denied an injunction, holding that the statute if applied to this case would be unconstitutional.

Supreme Court of the State

o         On appeal the Supreme Court of the State agreed that the defendant had contract and property rights protected by the Constitution of the United States, but held that the statute was a legitimate exercise of the police power and directed a decree for the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Argument:

o         The statute forbids mining of coal which would cause the subsidence of the Pl - house on the surface and is a legitimate exercise of police powers in protecting the safety of the public.

Defendants Argument:

o         The statute would effectively destroy the Df - rights that it retained under the K for the sale of property, and if valid would constitute a taking.

Some value are enjoyed under an implied limitation and must yield to police power

o         There are limits

Factors in determining Limits

o         Extend of diminution

o    When it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not in all cases there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the act.

o    The greatest weight is given to the judgment of the legislature, but it always is open to interested parties to contend that the legislature has gone beyond its constitutional power.

Court - Damage

o    This damage is private and not public.

o    The source of damage is not a public nuisance.

Court Statute

o    The act cannot be sustained s an exercise of the police power.

o    The right to coal consists in the right to mine it.

Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 531,

o    It was held competent for the legislature to require a pillar of coal to be left along the line of adjoining property, that, with the pillar on the other side of the line, would be a barrier sufficient for the safety of the employees of either mine in case the other should be abandoned and allowed to fill with water.

Court Only acquired surface rights

o         Private person or communities took a risk acquiring only surface rights.

Court Holding

o         We cannot see that the fact that their RISK has become a danger warrants giving to them greater rights than they bought.

Decree Reversed.

DISSENT Justice Brandeis

The right of the owner to use his land is NOT absolute

o         The owner may not create a public nuisance.

o         Uses that change conditions seriously threaten the public welfare.

o         When they do threaten the public welfare, the legislature has poer to prohibit such uses without paying compensation.

Not a taking when restriction protects the publics health, safety or morals.

o         This is a prohibition against a noxious use.

o         The State merely prevents the owner from making a use which interferes with paramount rights of the public.

Restrictions

o         Restrictions imposed for public purpose will not be lawful UNLESS the restriction is an appropriate MEANS to the public END.

o         To keep COAL in place is surely an appropriate means to preventing subsidence of the surface.

o         How unloosing poisonous gases are different than digging so deep that is causes surface problems?  Both are a public nuisance.

Values are relative

o         The sum of the rights in the parts cannot be greater than the rights in the whole.

Rules

Rule

o         Under the 5th Amendment, private property that is wanted for public use shall not be taken without just compensation.

o         Property may be regulated to a certain extent, but if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.

Class Notes