## Facts

- L. P. Edwards discovered and developed the “Great Onyx Cave,” whose entrance was on land owned by Edwards and his wife.
- Edwards commercialized the cave by advertising, improving passageways, and operating guided tours for paying tourists; the enterprise generated substantial revenue.
- F. P. Lee owned surface land adjoining the Edwards tract.
- Lee sued, alleging that a portion of the cave extended beneath Lee’s land and that Edwards trespassed by conducting tours through that underground segment.
- Lee sought damages, an accounting of profits from the cave’s operation, and an injunction barring further use of the segment beneath Lee’s land.
- The trial court ordered a survey; subsequent proceedings established that part of the cave lay under Lee’s tract.
- The trial court enjoined further use of the cave portion beneath Lee’s land and ordered an accounting awarding Lee’s estate net profits attributable to the wrongful use.
- Edwards appealed the measure and computation of recovery; Lee’s representatives cross-appealed, seeking gross profits rather than net profits.

## Issues

1. Whether ownership of surface land includes ownership of the subsurface cave beneath it, making a neighbor’s unconsented commercial use of that cave segment a trespass.
2. What measure of monetary recovery applies when a willful trespasser profits from using another’s subsurface property as part of a tourist business.
3. Whether the trial court correctly computed the recoverable profits for particular years, including periods when the cave’s exhibition to the public was incomplete.

## Decision

- The court held that Lee, as the surface owner, owned the subsurface cave portion beneath his tract; Edwards’ operation through that segment was a trespass.
- The court affirmed injunctive relief prohibiting continued unconsented use of the cave segment under Lee’s land.
- The court approved an equitable accounting requiring Edwards, treated as a willful trespasser, to disgorge net profits attributable to the use of Lee’s subsurface property.
- The court rejected Lee’s request for gross profits and affirmed the net-profits approach on cross-appeal.
- The court affirmed the recovery framework but reversed in part and remanded for correction of the computation for a period (including 1930) where profits were overstated due to incomplete public exhibition of the cave.

## Legal Principles

- Title to land includes the subsurface; subterranean cavities beneath a tract belong to the surface owner, and unconsented use constitutes trespass.
- For willful, profit-seeking trespass, equity may require the wrongdoer to account for and pay the net profits derived from the wrongful use of another’s property.
- Disgorgement in this setting aims to prevent a trespasser from retaining gains from the trespass, while allowing deductions for expenses to avoid awarding the landowner more than the trespasser’s net benefit.
- Profit awards must be supported by a proper allocation and time period; erroneous inclusion of profits not attributable to the actionable use requires recalculation.

## Conclusion

The court recognized subsurface cave ownership as following surface boundaries and treated commercial tours through an adjoining owner’s underground cave segment as willful trespass, warranting an injunction and disgorgement of net profits, with a partial remand to correct an overstated profit calculation for a specific period.


Edwards v. Lee’s Administrator, 265 Ky. 418, 96 S.W.2d 1028 (Ky. Ct. App. 1936)