Hartzall v. Sill
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Warren. Case for nuisance. The plaintiff was the owner of a mill, propelled. by the water of a stream, without a dam. The defendants subsequently built a mill on their land, on the stream above that of the plaintiff’s, and there erected a dam ten or twelve feet high, in which they collected and retained the water long enough for the uses of their mill, hut no longer. They used a wheel called a •flutter-wheel.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Warren. Case for nuisance. The plaintiff was the owner of a mill, propelled. by the water of a stream, without a dam. The defendants subsequently built a mill on their land, on the stream above that of the plaintiff’s, and there erected a dam ten or twelve feet high, in which they collected and retained the water long enough for the uses of their mill, hut no longer. They used a wheel called a •flutter-wheel. It was proved that this detention of. the water injured the plaintiff’s mill. The defendants contended that if they used no more water than was…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
The case of Hay v. Sterrett, 2 Watts, 327, was argued a second time in the Supreme Court by very able counsel. The elaborate opinion of Mr. Justice Rogers, pronounced on deliberation, is sound in every particular. That case is like the present, and the only difference is that Hay’s grist-mill had a possession on the stream upwards of thirty years before Sterrett’s saw-mill was constructed. In that case it was established that the mere prior occupation of a stream of water for the purposes of a mill, will not vest such an exclusive right to the occupant as to enable him to maintain an action…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoy v. SterrettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Consolidated Water Supply Co. v. State Hospital for Criminal InsaneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917