Sheffield Water Co. v. Elk Tanning Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 360, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Warren Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 43, on bill in equity in case of Sheffield Water Company v. Elk Tanning Company. Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Lindsey, P. J. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Errors assigned were in dismissing various exceptions, findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
The assignments of error which challenge the findings of fact by the court need not be discussed, since the undisputed facts are sufficient in themselves for all practical purposes. Nor need we concern ourselves with the several conclusions of law, except as they relate to the reservation in the deed of conveyance. The determination of the case must rest finally upon the construction of this reservation. The facts are these: For a number of years prior to 1887 three separate tanning plants were operated at or near the village of Sheffield in Warren county by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kister v. ReeserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Klaer v. RidgwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
- Seibert v. LevanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Moffitt v. LytleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Randall v. SilverthornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Burns Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. BoehmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Wilkes-Barre Township School District v. CorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Heidt v. Aughenbaugh Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Piper v. MowrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Lauderbach-Zerby Co. v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.