Richardson v. Clements
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county: ' Of January Term 1878, No. 24. Amicable action of trespass guare clausum fregit, wherein Charles Richardson was plaintiff and Samuel Clements defendant. A case was stated for the opinion of the court below, the substance of which is set forth in the opinion of this court.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county: ' Of January Term 1878, No. 24. Amicable action of trespass guare clausum fregit, wherein Charles Richardson was plaintiff and Samuel Clements defendant. A case was stated for the opinion of the court below, the substance of which is set forth in the opinion of this court. The clause in the deed is a reservation or exception, and must be construed most strongly against the grantor and most favorably to the grantee: Whitaker v. Brown, 10 Wright 199; Trout v. McDonald, 2 Norris 144; Buller v. Denning, 5 B. & C. 842; Danner v. Spurrier, 3…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mercur
This is a case stated. The parties own adjoining lands. Both properties were formerly owned by a Mr. Hallowell. While thus the owner of the whole he put in a hydraulic ram, on that portion of the land now owned by plaintiff, and thereby supplied with spring water his mansion-house on the land now owned by the defendant. He conveyed the whole property to Mrs. Butler. She continued for some time, to use the hydraulic ram to force the water to her house; but afterwards substituted a water-wheel in place of the ram. While thus procuring the water by means of the wheel, she conveyed about twenty…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Stewart v. ChernickySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- McMillin v. TitusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Commonwealth v. FitzmartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Wiegand v. WiegandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Commonwealth v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.