Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Shepherd
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
888 F.2d 1533 (1989)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Company (Pittsburg) (plaintiff) obtained a mineral interest under several tracts of land. Pittsburg’s interest was based on a 1912 severance deed. J. C. Shepherd (defendant) had the surface rights to the land. Under the 1912 severance deed, Pittsburg had the right to remove minerals from the property. Pittsburg also had the right to use the surface for such removal of coal from the tracts underneath the land or from underneath any other lands. Pittsburg operated mines over several tens of thousands of acres in addition to the relevant property. Pittsburg’s coal pond, necessary to process coal, had become full and could no longer be used. Pittsburg sought to build a new pond on the surface of Shepherd’s property, which was the necessary placement for engineering reasons. This pond used a technology not available at the time the severance deed was executed in 1912. Additionally, the pond would be used to remove coal from nearly all Pittsburg’s operations, not just the minerals under Shepherd’s property. Pittsburg sued Shepherd for an injunction authorizing construction of the pond. The district court agreed with Pittsburg, and Shepherd appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.