Legal Opinion

Woodring v. Hollenbach

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 3, 1902No. Appeal, No. 265PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lehigh Co., Jan. T., 1899, No. 52, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Wesley J. Wood-ring v. Frank Hollenback. Trespass to recover damages for wrongful use of water. Before Albright, P. J. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mestrezat,

The plaintiff and defendant are the owners of adjoining tracts of land in Whitehall township, Lehigh county. They derived title through a common grantor, Jeremiah Ritter assignee for the benefit of creditors of Thomas Bertsch. In the deed of the defendant is the following grant: “ Together also the sole and exclusive right for the owner or occupier of the said gristmill, their or his heirs and assigns forever, the use of the waters of the spring known as the Sand Spring, and the outflow, without any interruption or molestation whatsoever for the use of said…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Deshon v. PorterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Eastern Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  2. Volpe v. Atlantic Crushed Coke Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Cryer v. Sawkill Pines Camp, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Levin v. HouckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API