A court may grand equitable relief to restrain the removal of subjacent support only if the injury complained of is irreparable and it cannot be adequately compensated in damages, and other considerations which ordinarily govern a court of equity in granting an injunction.

The case Lloyd v. Catlin Coal Co., 210 Ill. 460 (Ill. 1904), arose upon an allegation by a surface owner that a coal company had failed to leave sufficient coal in place to provide permanent support for the surface.  It caused subsidence of some areas of the surface leaving a probability that the land would become unfit for farming. The Court opined that the evidence was so conflicting as to determine whether the surface of the land, or any part of it, would subside at all or to what extent damage would result.  On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief for want of equity.  It found that the surface owner had an adequate remedy in monetary damages for any subsidence that might occur.  The court noted that determining the amount of coal that could be removed without causing significant subsidence was a complicated question.

In Berkey v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 220 Pa. 65 (Pa. 1908), a landowner conveyed and sold all the coal underlying his property to a mining company.  The surface and ownership rights of the limestone on the property were maintained by him.  However, the right to support of the surface land was not expressly waived in the conveyance deed.  A bill in equity was filed by the landowner and he subsequently obtained a preliminary injunction to restrain the company from removing pillars of coal that had been left standing on the mining operations.  It was alleged that the removal of the pillars would cause irreparable damage to the property and that he was without an adequate remedy at law.  A motion to dismiss the injunction was filed by the company.  It was held that as for any damage done to the surface in the past, the landowner had an action at law.  The court reversed the decision of the lower court that granted the preliminary injunction and the bill to prevent the company from removing pillars of coal from the property was dismissed.