Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Evolution of Resource Property Rights$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Anthony Scott

Print publication date: 2008

Print ISBN-13: 9780198286035

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2008

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198286035.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 03 June 2020

Mineral Disposal and Mining Rights on Private Land

Mineral Disposal and Mining Rights on Private Land

Chapter:
(p.289) 8 Mineral Disposal and Mining Rights on Private Land
Source:
The Evolution of Resource Property Rights
Author(s):

Anthony Scott

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198286035.003.0008

Changes in mining rights on private lands came about in leasing contracts, court interpretations, and custom. By the nineteenth century English landowning families could set up mining operation themselves, call on free miners, or lease or sell mining rights to outsiders. Under changing property law, the family head might be impeachable for waste — for his family and his tenants his title might require that the estate's minerals and surface lands remain intact. Changes in tort law lawsuit decisions increased his exclusivity. They prevented him from interfering with his neighbours, his neighbours from harming him, and flooding. The courts in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) produced a spillover doctrine that was soon applied beyond mining. If the holding originating the flooding was doing something that was not ‘natural’ to its operations, it was liable to the victim. In the booming US mining, Rylands v Fletcher was cited frequently. The chapter mentions damage from surface collapse. The English courts were driven to an extreme: any surface landowner was absolutely entitled to support. The parties' contract could not waive this right. Instead of this for some decades some American courts followed a doctrine that when on one piece of land surface and mining interests were in physical conflict the miner's was always the ‘dominant’ estate.

Keywords:   implied contractual rights, customary rights, flooding, exclusivity, tort law, Rylands v Fletcher, mineral demand, reasonable use, waste, property rights

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .