PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. v. MAHON et al. 260 U.S. 393 (43 S.Ct.

158, 67 L.Ed. 322)

Brief Fact Summary. Property owner brought 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. Limitations 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.

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 Co. both contract and property
rights which the Kohler Act rendered useless.

ISSUE: Whether the statute 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 of the value of property and found that when a 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 use 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.
Dissent. Justice Louis Brandeis (J. Brandeis) thought 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.

Discussion. Diminution in value would destroy the Pennsylvania Coal

Companys existing rights of property and contract. Court thought notice
would afford the private owner adequate safety.