#6620 - Livingstone V. Rawyards Coal Ltd. - Commercial Remedies BCL

Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Ltd.

Facts

The Appellant is the owner of a small feu of about an acre and a half in extent near Airdrie. The surface of the ground is occupied by miners' cottages or houses, and underneath there was coal. When the Appellant bought the feu some time ago he appears to have been under the impression that the minerals under this feu, as under all the ground which surrounded it, had been reserved by the superior. In point of fact that was a mistake. The superior kept in his hand the minerals under all the ground around, but under this acre and a half the coal had not been reserved in the grant of the feu now owned by the Appellant. The Appellant, therefore, although he did not know it, was the owner of the coal under this acre and a half of ground. The superior granted the whole property in all the surrounding land to the company who are the Respondents, and they, just as the Appellant was ignorant of his rights, appear to have been ignorant of theirs. They appear to have been under the impression that they had the whole of the coal, including the coal under the acre and a half. They had the coal which surrounded the acre and a half, but they had not the coal which was underneath the acre and a half. In the process of their working they worked out the coal under the acre and a half, and when that was done it was ascertained (it is unnecessary to observe how the discovery came to be made) what the real titles were, and that this coal really belonged to the Appellant, and did not belong to the Respondents, who had got it and disposed of it. I ought to add that in working under the acre and a half of ground they had, by letting down or cracking the ground, caused some damage to the miners' cottages which stood upon the surface of the acre and a half.

Appellant could not have extracted the coal himself: The value to this Appellant is not the value which he could have derived from himself working the coal and taking it into the market, because he could not have worked it; the area is so small that it would have been impossible for himself to have worked and used the coal, and earned a profit, or put an additional value upon the coal by so working it; he must have gone to some person, or waited till some person came to him who had the power of working the coal from adjacent working; therefore (say they) the value is that which he could have obtained from somebody else who would have come and taken the coal as it stood in situ, and who would have worked it and turned it to account.

Holding

Lord Blackburn

I do not think there is any difference of opinion as to its being a general rule that, where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation of damages you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.

Earl Cairns LC

Case of innocent trespass

We may put aside some elements which might occur in some cases, but which do not occur in the present case. There is absent here the element of any wilful trespass or wilful taking of coal, which the person taking it knew did not belong to him. What was done was done in perfect ignorance, and there was no bad faith or sinister intention in that which was done.

Measure of Damages

I own that it appears to me that the Court of Session have adopted a principle which is not unsatisfactory for the purpose of ascertaining that value. They have said, the value to this Appellant is not the value which he could have derived from himself working the coal and taking it into the market, because he could not have worked it; the area is so small that it would have been impossible for himself to have worked and used the coal, and earned a profit, or put an additional value upon the coal by so working it; he must have gone to some person, or waited till some person came to him who had the power of working the coal from adjacent working; therefore (say they) the value is that which he could have obtained from somebody else who would have come and taken the coal as it stood in situ, and who would have worked it and turned it to account.

Upon that evidence the Court of Session say, “We are of opinion that the value to this Appellant of this coal was the money that would have been produced if he had sold the coal, and the money that he would have got if he...