## Facts

- A 1902 deed severed the coal from a 21¼-acre tract, conveying “all the coal in and under” the land with a clause permitting removal “without liability for injury to the surface,” and referencing mine ventilation by shafts.
- The Stewart estate later owned the surface estate; Vincent and Lois Conner owned the coal estate.
- The Conners leased coal rights on multiple tracts to C & K Coal Company (Chernicky and Kriebel); this parcel was listed as the “V.C. Conner Tract (Coal).”
- The tract was remote, wooded, and not clearly marked; C & K did not survey the tract or adjacent lands to confirm boundaries or divided ownership.
- In 1963, C & K strip-mined approximately six to seven acres of the Stewart surface without the surface owner’s consent, causing extensive surface damage.
- The Stewart estate sued both C & K (the operator) and the Conners (coal owners/lessors) for damages to the surface.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1902 coal deed’s surface-damage release authorized removal of coal by strip mining, without liability for destruction of the surface, when the surface was separately owned.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s imposition of liability on both the strip-mining operator and the coal owners/lessors, making judgment n.o.v. improper.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of judgment n.o.v. for defendants.
- The court held the 1902 deed did not authorize strip mining with immunity from liability for surface destruction on land with separate surface ownership.
- The court concluded the record supported the jury’s verdict against both C & K and the Conners.
- The court reinstated the jury verdict awarding $10,200 in damages to the surface owner.

## Legal Principles

- The scope of rights in a coal severance deed is construed in light of the parties’ intent and conditions existing at the time of the grant, including mining methods then contemplated.
- General language releasing liability for “injury to the surface,” when used in an era contemplating underground mining (e.g., shafts), does not by itself authorize later-developed strip mining that substantially destroys the surface.
- The character or perceived utility of the surface (e.g., remote woodland) does not expand the mineral owner’s rights beyond what the grant reasonably conveys.
- A mining operator’s failure to confirm boundaries and ownership (including failing to survey) does not enlarge deeded mining rights or defeat liability for unauthorized surface destruction.

## Conclusion

Because the 1902 deed, read in its historical context, contemplated underground mining and did not clearly permit strip mining that obliterates the surface, the strip-mining operation was not immunized from liability; the trial court’s judgment n.o.v. was reversed and the jury’s surface-damage award reinstated.


Stewart v. Chernicky, 266 A.2d 259 (Pa. 1970)