The Great Onyx Case was also the subject of litigation that reached Kentucky's high courts in 1929 (232 Ky. 791, 24 S.W.2d 619). Edwards was successfully sued by a neighboring landowner (Lee) who alleged that the cave ran underneath his property. Invoking the
ad coelem et ad inferos principle, the court ordered restitution of all profits derived from running tours on the plaintiff's property. However, the basis of this ruling has been subject to much controversy: invoking the user principle of damages for trespass, the plaintiff ought to have been due only reasonable rental value of the land. It is for this reason that unjust enrichment theorists at
Oxford University believe the case to have been one of unjust enrichment, the enrichment of the defendant having been at the expense of the plaintiff's proprietary right, thus severing the link between enrichment and loss and thereby confirming the unjust enrichment analysis of cases such as
Trustee of FC Jones and Son v Jones,
Foskett v McKeown and the doctrine of
equitable tracing. ==Lack of connection==