Case

Title Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

G.R. no. 43 S. Ct. 158
Main Topic Police Power
Other Related Topic
Date: 1922

DOCTRINES
1. One consideration in deciding whether limitations on private property, to be implied in favor
of the police power, are exceeded, is the degree in which the values incident to the property are
diminished by the regulation in question, and this is to be determined from the facts of the
particular case.

2. The general rule, at least, is that, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking for
which compensation must be paid.

3. The rights of the public in a street, purchased or laid out by eminent domain, are those that it
has paid for.

4. Where the owner of land containing coal deposits had deeded the surface with express
reservation of the right to remove all the coal beneath, the grantees assuming the risk and
waiving all claim to damages that might arise from such mining, and the property rights thus
reserved, and contracts made, were valid under the state law, and a statute, enacted later,
forbade mining in such a way as to cause subsidence of any human habitation or public street or
building, etc., and thereby made commercially impracticable the removal of very valuable coal
deposits still standing unmined, held, that the prohibition exceeded the police power, whether
viewed as a protection to private surface owners or to cities having only surface rights, and
contravened the rights of the coal owner under the Contract Clause of the Constitution and the
Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. *
FACTS:
Property owner brought this suit to prevent Pennsylvania Coal Company from mining under
their property so as to remove supports and cause a subsidence of the surface and their houses.
The deeds conveyed only surface rights to the homeowners and expressly reserved the right to
remove the coal underneath as a separate estate. The Kohler Act prohibited companies in
Pennsylvania from mining of coal in such a way as to cause the subsidence of homes and
surfaces near improved properties.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Limitation on the use of land through the police power have limits and
will be considered a taking under the eminent domain power when the diminution in value of
the property reaches a certain magnitude, which depends upon the particular facts.

The Kohler Act prohibited mining that would cause subsidence of homes and surfaces near
residential properties. The Pennsylvania Coal Co. had relied in contract and deeds to retain the
valuable estate in the land beneath the surface. The property owners sought to enjoin the
Pennsylvania Coal Co. from mining beneath their homes. The trial court found that the
Pennsylvania Coal Co.’s mining would cause the subsidence damage and danger prohibited by
the Kohler Act and sought prevention by injunction. The subsurface estate could not be valuably
mined for profit and still support the surface above. The owner had consented to the deed with
the express reservation of the coal rights. As such the deed gave Pennsylvania Coal rights. As
such the deed gave Pennsylvania Coal Co. both contract and property rights which the Kohler
Act rendered useless.

ISSUE:
Whether was permissible under the police power or instead constituted an exercise of eminent
domain that required just compensation
HELD:
Private owner had only acquired surface rights and not the right to supporting property
underneath the land. The Kohler Act went beyond a regulation and became a taking. The Court
considered the magnitude of diminution reaches a certain point the government must
compensate for it. The Pennsylvania Coal Co. could not exercise the only valuable right it
possessed which was to mine the property for profit. The Court considered the magnitude of
diminution reaches a certain point the government must compensate for it. The Pennsylvania
Coal Co. could not exercise the only valuable right it possessed which was to mine the property
for profit. The Court acknowledged that the public may have used for the support, and an
interest in their safety, however, the subsurface rights to a property could not be taken for the
public without just compensation.

Dissenting opinion: Justice Louis Brandeis, thought that the legislature should have the power to
prohibit use of land that seriously threatens public welfare without any just compensation.
According to J. Brandeis, restriction upon a particular use does not become inappropriate
whenever it is not compensated, even though it could alternatively be prevented through such
compensation.

* Diminution in value would destroy the Pennsylvania Coal Company’s existing rights of property
and contract. Court thought notice would afford the private owner adequate safety.