Power v. Borough of Ridgway
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 356, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, Robert Power, from judgment of C. P. Elk Co., May T., 1890, No. 144, compulsory nonsuit. Trespass for damages caused by a change in the abutments of a bridge. On the trial before Mayer, P. J., at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, a nonsuit was entered, which the court after-wards refused to take off. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 356, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, Robert Power, from judgment of C. P. Elk Co., May T., 1890, No. 144, compulsory nonsuit. Trespass for damages caused by a change in the abutments of a bridge. On the trial before Mayer, P. J., at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, a nonsuit was entered, which the court after-wards refused to take off. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court. JError assigned was the granting of the compulsory nonsuit and the refusal to take it off.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We think the plaintiff was properly nonsuited in the court below. His contention was that his property was endangered, and its market value greatly depreciated by a change in the location of the abutments of a bridge, which the borough had rebuilt; that by reason of this change the water of the stream was diverted from its course, and thrown against his house and across his lot. The evidence does not show that, prior to the com*318mencement of his suit, any considerable amount of damage had been done to his property. He claims, however, that it is liable to serious injury at any time,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Gardner v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Taylor v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Lewisburg Bridge Co. v. County of UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Hastings AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Gardner v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.