Ensworth v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lycoming county. This was a prosecution against Ensworth, Taylor & Brown, for maintaining a mill-dam in the West Branch of the Susquehanna, contrary to the provisions of the Mill-Dam Act of March 23d 1803. On the 24th of April 1864, E. B. England petitioned the Court of Quarter Sessions, alleging that the defendants maintained a mill-dam contrary to the provisions of the act.
Read the full summary
Error, to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lycoming county. This was a prosecution against Ensworth, Taylor & Brown, for maintaining a mill-dam in the West Branch of the Susquehanna, contrary to the provisions of the Mill-Dam Act of March 23d 1803. On the 24th of April 1864, E. B. England petitioned the Court of Quarter Sessions, alleging that the defendants maintained a mill-dam contrary to the provisions of the act. Viewers were appointed, who reported that the defendants did so maintain a dam. An indictment of two counts, one for nuisance under the act and the other for nuisance at common…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, May 24th 1866, by
Strong, J.
The jury have found that the dam, as maintained by the defendants below, now plaintiffs in error, is an obstruction to the navigation of the river, but they have not found that it is a nuisance. Whether it is or not is the very question presented by the special verdict. Though an obstruction to navigation, if the dam is authorized by law it is no nuisance, and the defendants are not indictable for maintaining it.
Without the license granted by the Act of March 23d 1803, commonly called the “ Mill-dam Act,” there could be no…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bacon v. ArthurSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Criswell v. ClughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922