Legal Opinion

Rothrauff Et Ux. v. Sinking Spr. W. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 10, 1940No. Appeal, 167PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Stern,

Plaintiffs are the owners of a farm in Berks County upon which, until the event hereinafter mentioned, there was a deep-seated spring producing a substantial quantity of water. Defendant, a corporation engaged in the business of furnishing water to the public, entered into a written agreement with plaintiffs on January 9, 1935, by which it was to purchase the effluent of this spring for a period of ten years for the price of two and a half cents per thousand gallons, the flow to be metered in such manner that wastage or overflow from its reservoir would not be…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Forbell v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  3. Arlotte v. National Liberty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Macan v. Scandinavia Belting Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  5. Wheatley v. BaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Bristor v. CheathamArizona Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Higday v. NickolausMissouri Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. Bumbarger v. WalkerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Estate of CreaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Jarvis v. State Land DepartmentArizona Supreme Court · 1970

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API