Hughesville Water Co. v. Person
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 483, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Lycoming Co., June T., 1892, No. 2, dismissing bill in equity. Bill in equity for an injunction to restrain the obstruction and diversion of water. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Errors assigned were in overruling exceptions to master’s report, and in dismissing bill.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
This case presents atr interesting question. Fortunately the report of the learned master furnishes us ivith the facts in a very clear and orderly manner, and if his general theory of the situation and rights of the parties be adopted his legal conclusions seem well drawn.
Let us look first at the relative situation of the parties and their rights as riparian owners. We shall then understand the complaint made by the plaintiffs, and be able to determine the sufficiency of the answer made, and of the theory upon which the case was tried and decided. A considerable…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dexter v. TreeIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
- Demuth v. AmwegSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
3Cited by8 opinions
- Romans v. NadlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Zerbey v. AllanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Irving's Executors v. Burgess of MediaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Walton Cranberry Co. v. SeamonMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Fiedler v. CoenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.