Hanover Water Co. v. Ashland Iron Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of York county: Of May Term 1877, No. 95. The parties to this action as they stood on the record of the court below, were The Ashland Iron Company, plaintiff, and The Hanover Water Company, defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of York county: Of May Term 1877, No. 95. The parties to this action as they stood on the record of the court below, were The Ashland Iron Company, plaintiff, and The Hanover Water Company, defendant. The action was instituted by the presentation to the Court of Common Pleas of York county, on the 7th of September 1874, of a petition for the appointment of viewers to assess damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on account of the construction of the works of the defendant. Both parties appealed from the report of the viewers, and on the 30th…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sharswood
The rule for the measure of damages was correctly stated by the learned judge below, that it was the difference in the market value of the property of the Ashland Iron Company as a farm and ore-bank immediately before the water company appropriated the stream and immediately afterwards as affected thereby. It is true that the first point of the plaintiff below was inaccurately worded, and the unqualified affirmance of it might have misled the jury if it had stood alone to think that the measure of damages was the value of all the water that would pass through the pipe even to the extent of…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Rabe v. Shoenberger Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- City of St. Louis v. VasquezSupreme Court of Missouri · 1960
- Kansas City & Grandview Railway Co. v. HaakeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Berger v. Public Parking Authority of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. BarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.