Lee v. Springfield Water Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 94, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 83, on verdict for plaintiffs. Appeal from award of jury of view, assessing damages for taking water from stream.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 94, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 83, on verdict for plaintiffs. Appeal from award of jury of view, assessing damages for taking water from stream. Before Clayton, P. J. On the trial the defendant offered to prove by Howard W. Widener, a manufacturer engaged in business in Chester for a number of years, and conversant with the manufacturing business and acquainted with the values of mill properties on Crum creek, who has known the property in question for ten or fifteen years and knows its value, what in his judgment is the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
The defendant had seized a part of the waters of Crum creek for the supply of .its waterworks. The plaintiffs are mill owners on the same stream and below the point at which the water is taken. The object of this proceeding is to ascertain the damages sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the appropriation of a portion of the water of the stream that had previously flowed through their property and been used by them to aid in propelling their machinery. The true measure of damages to be applied in all cases of a taking by virtue of eminent domain is involved…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller v. Windsor Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
3Cited by7 opinions
- Morrissey v. Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Thibadeau v. Clarinda Copper Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1928
- Hoober v. New Holland Water Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- James v. West Chester BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Hercules Water Co. v. FernandezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.