Crescent Mining Co. v. Silver King Mining Co.
54 P. 244, 17 Utah 444, 1898 Utah LEXIS 81 (1898)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owns the percolating water found within their land, and a downstream user cannot acquire a prescriptive right to its continued flow after it has been artificially collected and discharged. Furthermore, a court of equity may deny an injunction for a continuous trespass if the plaintiff's injury is merely nominal and can be adequately compensated by damages, especially when granting the injunction would cause disproportionately massive harm to the defendant.
Facts:
- The defendant, Silver King Mining Co., and its predecessors owned patented mining claims and excavated a tunnel on the property.
- This tunnel intercepted and collected underground, percolating water from within the defendant's claims.
- The collected water flowed out of the tunnel's mouth and into a body of water known as Shadow Lake.
- In 1886, the plaintiff, Crescent Mining Co., constructed a dam and a pipe line to appropriate water from Shadow Lake for its own mining operations.
- Plaintiff used the water from the lake, which was supplied in part by the discharge from defendant's tunnel, for a period longer than seven years.
- The defendant subsequently laid a pipe line in a trench across separate, barren, rocky, and unused mining claims owned by the plaintiff.
- The installation of this pipe line caused only nominal damage to the plaintiff's property, and no earth or material was removed from the claims.
Procedural Posture:
- Crescent Mining Co. filed a lawsuit against Silver King Mining Co. in a Utah district court (trial court).
- The suit sought to establish a right to water flowing from the defendant's tunnel and to obtain an injunction to remove a pipe line the defendant laid across the plaintiff's land.
- The trial court entered a decree for the defendant, holding that it owned the tunnel water and that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction but was instead remitted to an action at law for damages.
- Crescent Mining Co., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Utah.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a landowner entitled to an injunction to prevent a continuing trespass on its land when the trespass causes only nominal damage to barren property, and enjoining the trespass would cause irreparable and disproportionate harm to the trespasser's significant mining operations?
Opinions:
Majority - Miner, J.
No, a landowner is not entitled to an injunction for a trespass that causes only nominal harm when balancing the equities reveals that the injunction would cause great and disproportionate harm to the defendant. The court also held that a downstream user does not acquire a prescriptive right to percolating water collected on an upstream landowner's property. The law distinguishes percolating water from surface streams, treating it as part of the soil itself, belonging to the landowner. Because the defendant could not have sued the plaintiff for using water after it left the defendant's property, the plaintiff's use was not adverse, and no prescriptive right could be established. Regarding the trespass, equity will not issue an injunction for a mere trespass absent irreparable injury. Here, the plaintiff's land was barren and worthless, the damage was nominal, and a legal remedy for money damages was adequate. To grant the injunction would destroy the defendant's valuable mining operation for no corresponding benefit to the plaintiff. Therefore, the court balances the hardships in favor of denying the injunction and remitting the plaintiff to its remedy at law.
Dissenting - McCarty, District Judge
Yes, the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction because the defendant's trespass is a continuous and permanent unlawful occupation of its property. The legal remedy is inadequate because it would require the plaintiff to file a multiplicity of lawsuits to recover what would only be nominal damages, while allowing the defendant to effectively confiscate the plaintiff's property. A permanent physical occupation is an irreparable injury per se, as it disturbs possession and will ripen into an easement if permitted to continue. The value of the land is immaterial to the fundamental right of a property owner to be protected from a continuous, forcible occupation.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'balancing of the hardships' (or 'relative hardship') doctrine for injunctive relief in this jurisdiction. It allows a court of equity to refuse an injunction against a trespass where the harm to the plaintiff is trivial and the economic consequence to the defendant would be catastrophic. This approach prioritizes economic utility over the strict enforcement of property rights, which can be controversial as it may be viewed as allowing a form of 'private eminent domain.' The ruling also solidifies the absolute ownership rule for percolating waters, preventing downstream users from claiming rights to water artificially developed and discharged by an upstream landowner.
