Skip to main content
· 1/15/1880

Wilms v. Jess

Citations

  • 94 Ill. 464

Syllabus

<p>1. Mining—injury to surface land by leaving no sufficient supports. Where the surface of land belongs to one, and the minerals to another, no evidence of title appearing to regulate or qualify their rights of enjoyment, the owner of the minerals can not remove them without leaving support sufficient to maintain the surface in its natural state.</p> <p>2. The rule is well settled that when one owning the whole fee grants the minerals, reserving the surface to himself, his grantee is entitled only to so much of the mineral as he can get without injury to the superincumbent soil.</p> <p>3. Same—injury to building by subsidence of earth. While it is doubtless true the party owning the minerals under the land of another, or having a lease to remove the same, is only bound to leave support for the superincumbent soil in its natural state, and is not required to leave support for additional buildings erected on the surface, yet the mere presence of a building I or other structure upon the surface will not prevent, a recovery for injuries to ! the surface, unless it is shown that the subsidence would not have occurred j from the act, if no buildings existed upon the surface. The act creating the. subsidence is wrongful, and renders the owners of the mine liable for all; damages that result therefrom, as well to the buildings as to the land. '</p> <p>4. The act of removing all support from the superincumbent soil is prima facie the cause of its subsequently subsiding; but if the subsidence is in fact caused by the weight of buildings erected on the surface after the execution of a lease to the defendant, authorizing him to take the mineral beneath the surface, that may be shown in defence as contributive negligence.</p> <p>5. Mining lease—construed. Where a mining lease stipulated that no pillars should be withdrawn within 600 feet of the shaft, and the whole clause relates to the manner of working the mine and the condition in which it should be left, it was held that th

Judges: Scholfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.