Darlington v. Painter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Chester. April 4, 5. Trespass quare clausum fregit. Pleas: that defendant and those whose estate he had, from beyond the time of memory, had a right to enter and cleanse a certain ditch, which was the trespass complained of. 2. A grant by the owner of the plaintiff’s land of the right to a certain ditch, whereby the water flowing through defendant’s lands might be carried off, &c., and that he entered and cleansed it, &e., so that the waters…
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Chester. April 4, 5. Trespass quare clausum fregit. Pleas: that defendant and those whose estate he had, from beyond the time of memory, had a right to enter and cleanse a certain ditch, which was the trespass complained of. 2. A grant by the owner of the plaintiff’s land of the right to a certain ditch, whereby the water flowing through defendant’s lands might be carried off, &c., and that he entered and cleansed it, &e., so that the waters might pass off freely. Replication — a general traverse. On the trial it appeared that defendant, for more than…
1Opinion of the Court
_ Gibson, C. J.
The owner of a water-course through the land of another, whether to lead the stream to his ground, or discharge it, may enter to remove obstructions from natural or artificial causes; and the defendant had a clear right from adverse user for twenty years, to enter on the land of the plaintiff below him, in order to remove the earth and mud deposited in the trench, and to fit it to discharge the surplus water of irrigation. It may even be true, that he might have rightfully entered, though the user were to be changed from irrigation to water-power, provided the flow continued to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Snyder v. Colorado Gold Dredging Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
- Irving's Executors v. Burgess of MediaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Fisher v. PaffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899