Detweiler v. Groff
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Lancaster. Case for a nuisance, by raising the height of a dam. The nuisance was laid in the narr. to have existed from 1843 to 1846, when suit was brought. The defendant offered, as a witness, a tenant, on shares, of the mill to which the dam was appurtenant. He had entered after suit brought, under a demise from defendant, for one year. He was rejected as interested.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Lancaster. Case for a nuisance, by raising the height of a dam. The nuisance was laid in the narr. to have existed from 1843 to 1846, when suit was brought. The defendant offered, as a witness, a tenant, on shares, of the mill to which the dam was appurtenant. He had entered after suit brought, under a demise from defendant, for one year. He was rejected as interested. There was evidence given, that in 1844 the dam was a foot higher than it had ever been before; and there was also evidence, that for forty years previous to that time, the mill had done a…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
The second and third errors assigned are the only ones worthy of notice. The third and fourth are without substance or ground of complaint.
The second error is assigned to the rejection of Christian Ely as a witness. He was tenant of the defendant, in possession of the mill, which was supplied with water from the dam charged as the nuisance. He rented the mill on the shares; came to the property in the spring of 1847, after suit brought, and had agreed to continue the next year (1848). He was objected to, and rejected on the ground of interest. If authority was wanted, the case of Riddle v.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Follansbee Bros. v. Garrett-Cromwell Engineering Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911