Eshleman v. Martic Township
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 161, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1888, No. 43, on verdict for plaintiff, Samuel Eshleman. Trespass for draining water from highway across plaintiff’s farm.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 161, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1888, No. 43, on verdict for plaintiff, Samuel Eshleman. Trespass for draining water from highway across plaintiff’s farm. At the trial, before Livingston, P. J., there was evidence as to the following facts: Plaintiff purchased the farm in question in 1869. There was conflict of testimony whether the water since 1887 had flowed by the same channel from the public highway across the farm. In 1882 a supervisor of the township, after conferring with county auditors, gave plaintiff permission to close…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice McCollum,
The several specifications of error which relate to the admission of evidence on the subject of damages may be considered together. This evidence consisted mainly of the opinions of witnesses respecting the difference in the market value of the property with the water flowing upon and across it as described by them, and the market value of it with the water excluded from it. These opinions were evidently formed on the theory of a continued and permanent use of the property by the municipal authorities for the purpose of drainage in the manner complained of. It…
2Cases cited1 opinion
3Cited by23 opinions
- Rabe v. Shoenberger Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Titus v. Poland Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Helbling v. Allegheny Cemetery Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Ridgeway Court, Inc. v. Landon Courts, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Thompson v. Citizens Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.