Ganster v. Metropolitan Electric Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 58, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Nov. T., 1898, No. 36, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William F. Ganster et al. v. Metropolitan Electric Company. Trespass to recover damages for a continuing nuisance. Before Ermentrout, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $3,729.16. Defendant appealed. Error assigned among others was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
The learned trial judge correctly decided the controverted questions in this case, and the reasons given and the authorities cited in his opinion in discharging the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto fully justify his conclusion.
This is an action of trespass to recover damages for injuries to the buildings on the plaintiffs’ lot caused by the operation of the machinery in the defendant’s electric light plant on the adjoining lot. The plaintiffs’ allegation here, sustained by the judgment in a former action, is that the defendant company “ so attached…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pennsylvania R. v. MarchantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Pennsylvania R. v. LippincottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Canal CommissionersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Ellis v. Academy of MusicSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Brown v. Radnor Township Electric Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Terrell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1909
- Sebree v. Huntingdon Water Supply Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Adams v. Metropolitan Edison Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lebanon County1968
- Berish v. City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1950
- Wagner v. Purity Water Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912