Aja Sanneh
Economics 495
Case summary brief (2-page maximum)
Recorder name:
Case name:
Citation; Date:
Court:
Aja Sanneh
Edwards v Sims
232 Ky. 791; 24 S. W.2d 619 Ky. LEXIS 451
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Name (if specified) and description of litigants at the original trial court level
Plaintiff:
Edwards
Defendant:
Hon. N. P. Sims
Facts of the case:
Edwards owns land and was told that in order for the courts to investigate possible trespassers (his
neighbor Lee thinks Edwards is trespassing on his land via the caves), his land would be temporarily
invaded via his subterranean caves, named the Great Onyx Cave.
The entrance to the cave is on Edwards’ land.
Since the courts approved this survey, Edwards appealed and was denied.
In response to a denied appeal of the case Edwards v Lee, Edwards now files for a writ of prohibition to
prevent Sims (the Judge of Edwards’ appeals case) from enforcing the order to have his caves examined.
(What’s happening is, Lee has seen the worth of the caves after Edwards has given it value through
exploration, and he wants to see if the caves run under his land. If the caves run under Lee’s adjoining
land, he wants both 1) profits that Edwards has been getting and 2) to stop Edwards from reaping
benefit— see Judge Logan’s dissent).
Procedural history (remedy sought, prior rulings, grounds for appeal, etc., as available):
The relevant prior rulings are:
1. The courts initial decision to allow surveyors on/under Edwards’ land
2. Edwards’ denied appeal
Court opinion (key issues and arguments):
The key question for the Court is: Does a court of equity have transcendent power to invade property rights
in order to ascertain the truth of a matter before it? Can they trespass onto Edwards’ land, where the
entrance to the cave lies, in order to survey the caves?
The court rules, yes.
First, the “doctrine of ownership” the court recognizes is: “The owner of realty is entitled to the free and
unfettered control of his own land above, upon, and beneath the surface” Though ordinarily that right can’t
be infringed upon by others, the exception is if the enjoyment of that land is to the “detriment or
interference” of others.
They cite:
Langhorn v Turman—there are limitations on the right to enjoy property
40 C.J.947—a court of equity has the inherent power to compel a MINE OWNER to permit an inspection
Montana Co. v St. Louis MINING AND MILLING—authorized inspection when necessary to protect
“if it is necessary that a temporary invasion of the possession should yield to the higher good of
establishing justice”
Culbertson v Iola Portland Cement—allowed inspection “where there is a real necessity”
Dissenting opinion, if any (key issues and arguments):
Judge Logan, alone in his dissent:
Judge Logan does not deny precedent (although he finds them irrelevant because they all address mining,
mineral, or cement companies, not private individual land), but on with his own active judicial philosophy
and “faith in [his] own judgment” thinks the courts ruling is wrong. He says the rule denies Edwards his
rights. He also calls into question the doctrine of ownership. No “owner of the surface is also owner of the
atmosphere filling illimitable space or vacant bowels of the earth”
He suggests a new rule: He who owns the surface is the owner of everything that may be taken from the
earth and used for his profit or happiness. Anything which he may take is thereby subjected to his
dominion.” Or rather, “a man who owns the surface owns not only the land, but everything upon, above, or
below which he may use for his profit or pleasure”, but ownership cannot extend further than that. He owns
nothing which he cannot subject to his dominion.
Logan was not an advocate of precedent. He believed that if the precedent can’t appropriately address the
current case, new precedent must be made. Thus the ownership doctrine should be reformed.
In regards to Edwards’ cave, Edwards owns the cave through right of discovery, exploration, development,
advertising, exhibition, and conquest. The entrance to the cave also lays on Edwards’ land. He worked to
make value of a cave that prior, had none. The court of equity should not strip him of the cave he gave
worth.
Disposition of case:
Writ of Prohibition denied.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
1. Course topic of the case:
Property Rights (Can the Court temporarily take them) and
Ownership Rights (to what extent do landowners own the land, air,
and subterranean).
2. How does the case relate to the course topic?
Property rights: the courts infringing on Edwards’ property to do an investigation. The precedent they cite
only references mining, cement, and mineral companies, not private, home land.
3. Which previously assigned cases, if any, are related to this case, and how does this one differ?
Pierson v Post: 1) Post gave value to the fox by pursuing it, just as Edwards gave value to the caves and
2) Pierson can benefit from Post’s work just as neighbors may be able to benefit from Edwards’ betterment
of the caves 2)
4. How does the case affect economic incentives and efficiency?
It has a negative effect on economic efficiency. Edwards (according to the hyperbolic dissent) has
tours and visitors to his caves. He has already committed capital and time into the caves. He made
them useable, worthy, and safe. If the courts (which they do) allow his spoils to be taken, they take
incentive for folks to invest. They essentially reinforce laziness since whatever profit one sees, it
can be taken. Logan says “the cave was his [Edwards’] because he had made it what it was, and
without what he had done it was nothing of value”.