Hughes v. Emerald Mines Corporation

450 A.2d 1 (1982)

Free access to 20,000 Casebriefs

Legal Analysis

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

Nature Of The Case

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Facts

P bought property pursuant to a mining rights clause set forth in an earlier deed conveying to a predecessor in title in 1921. They erected a dwelling and drilled a well to supply water. Things were great until May or early June of 1978. In 1977 P purchased a mobile home and installed it on the property for their son's use. A second well was drilled, and from its installation until the same period in late May or early June of 1978 the supply was plentiful and potable. D owns mining rights under the entire property. Ps own the surface rights to a small section of this tract. D owns surface rights in addition to subsurface rights to a portion of the tract contiguous to Ps' property. D began to expand its operations. An airshaft built 540 and 600 feet from Ps' two wells. Well #1 went dry. Two or three days later, well #2 became polluted. Neighboring properties also experienced similar problems with their wells. Since June of 1978 Ps have had a tank installed at their residence and their son-in-law hauls water from his own home to theirs in 55-gallon lots daily. Ps travel two miles to the home of their son-in-law and daughter to shower, and must now take their laundry to the laundromat twice weekly instead of using the washer in their basement. Well # 2 can be used to flush the commode in the trailer, but cannot be used for cooking, cleaning, bathing, or drinking. Ps sued D for nuisance. Costs of hauling water attempted well repair, and laundry amounted to some $7,000 worth of out-of-pocket expenses. Real estate experts testified the loss of value in the land without any source of usable water to be $32,000. D presented a mining engineer, who opined that deeper drilling was 'reasonably certain' to find water, and later estimated the degree of certainty as '98%.' A jury found for Ps in the amount of $ 32,500. D appealed.

Issues

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Holding & Decision

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner

© 2025 Casebriefsco.com. All Rights Reserved.