Where adequate adverse possession of the surface gives title to it, such title will not cover mines in operation underneath ; Presi dent, etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Hughes, 183 Pa. 66, 38 Atl. 568, 38 L. R. A. 826, 63 Am. St. Rep. 743. Ejectment will lie for a telephone wire strung without right over the plaintiff's premises; Butler v. Tel. Co., 109 App. Div. 217, 95 N. Y. Supp. 684.
The right to develop the natural resources of land. All land is held subject to the right, in the state,. of taxation and eminent domain. The right to put his land to the most profitable use for his own benefit is one of the landowner's privileges, but how far this right extends has been the subject of much adjudication by the courts. He may develop its natural resources by mining, even if by so doing he injure the property of an adjacent landowner ; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson, 113 Pa. 126, 6 Atl. 453, 57 Am. Rep. 445 (overruling Sanderson v. Coal Co., 86 Pa. 401, 27 Am. Rep. 711, where Black, C. J., laid down the rule that "the necessities of one man's business cannot be the standard of another's rights in a thing belonging to both") ; he may make use of springs on his land, even if he thereby drain a stream in which others have a property right; Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Pa. 528, 64 Am. Dec. 721; or he may increase the volume of water in such a stream by draining his own swamp land; Kauffman v. Griesemer, 26 Pa. 407, 67 Am. Dec. 437; and if by any of these methods, he injure another, it is a damnsna absque infuria.
He may not collect upon his land or suf fer to accumulate there anything which, if it escape, may do injury to others, without being liable for all the resulting damage it may do ; Rylands v. Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330 (the leading case on the subject); he may not erect upon his land a manufacturing establishment, which is not intended to velop its natural resources, without being liable for any nuisance it may create to oth ers ; Townsend v. Bell, 62 Hun 306, 17 N. Y.
Supp. 210 ; Robb v. Carnegie Bros. & Co., 145 Pa. 324, 22 Atl. 649, 14 L. R. A. 329, 27 Am. St. Rep. 694; and he may be enjoined from maintaining a nuisance on his land, where such nuisance can be avoided, with out proof of damage to plaintiff or negli gence on the part of defendant. See FIRE.
He may not divert the water of a stream to an unusual course, even if the quantity of water is not diminished thereby ; Amster dam Knitting Co. v. Dean, 13 App. Div. 42, 43 N. Y. Supp. 29.
He may not obstruct a passway over his land which has been continuously used by the public for more than 15 years ; Gatewood v. Cooper (Ky.) 38 S. W. 690.
He may explode nitro-glycerine for the purpose of increasing the flow of natural gas, although by so doing he draw gas from the land of another ; Tyner v. Gas Co., 131 Ind. 408, 31 N. E. 61; but he is held liable in damages where he uses for that purpose an explosive so powerful as to injure the prop erty of an adjoining owner ; Morgan v. Bowes, 62 Hun 623, 17 N. Y. Supp. 22 ; and he may be enjoined from so doing where he can otherwise obtain the same result, al though at an increased cost to himself ; dill v. Schneider, 13 App. Div. 299, 43 N. Y. Supp. 1.
In the interest of the public there has been much legislation for the regulation and preservation of the natural resources of land which necessarily has operated as a restraint upon the right of the owner to use it as he pleases. Statutes of this character which have been held valid are : For protecting the water supply of the state, forbidding the cutting or destruction of trees growing on wild and uncultivated lands or the wanton cutting of small trees on such lands ; In re Opinions of Justices, 103 Me. 506, 69 AtL 627,