Watson v. Bioren
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THIS was an action on the case for disturbing the plaintiff in his right of way, and for stopping his water course. The cause was tried at Nisi Prius, before Tilghman C. J. in February, 1814, when a verdict was' found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court in bank, upon the following facts.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case for disturbing the plaintiff in his right of way, and for stopping his water course. The cause was tried at Nisi Prius, before Tilghman C. J. in February, 1814, when a verdict was' found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court in bank, upon the following facts. By deed, dated December 18th, 1805, Elisha Gordon and wife, conveyed to the plaintiff a lot of ground, on the south side of Chesnut street, containing ten feet in front on Ches* nut street, and running back seventy-seven feet to a three feet wide alley, which leads into Orphan?s court or…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
After having stated the different deeds, proceeded as follows: — The. defendant, who is proprietor of the alley, contends, that the plaintiff has no right to the use of it, because he has parted with all the lot to which the right of way was appurtenant, except the small piece last mentioned. It may be remarked in the outset, that at all events, the plaintiff must recover in this action, because the defendant has obstructed the water course, and no argument whatever has been urged to show that the right to the water course is lost, by selling part of the lot. As to the right of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lewis v. CarstairsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- May v. SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1884