Brown v. Kistler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 27, 1899

Brown v. Kistler, 190 Pa. 499 (Pa. 1899)

42 A. 885; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1051

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The questions at issue in this case wer,e essentially questions of fact. They were very carefully submitted to the jury and determined by the verdict. We think the learned court below kept within the limits of the decisions in defining the rights of owners as to percolating or seeping water, and charged the jury correctly as to the right of the owner to divert the water by *509reasonable use of the same, even if by such use a lower owner might be somewhat injured. The jury found under the charge that there was no unreasonable diversion of the water in this respect.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Catharine A. Brown v. Milo Kistler and Alice C. Kistler
Cited By: 6 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Waters — Water course — Defined channel — Riparian rights — Diversion of stream — Percolations. Water that is in the earth and finds its way through the soil by percolating or seeping, and has not a defined flow in a stream either under ground or above the ground, is absolutely the property of the man who owns the land in which that water is found; but where there is a defined stream, whether over or below the surface, the upper owner has no right unreasonably to divert the water to the injury of a lower owner. An upper riparian owner has the right to use the water for household purposes and .for watering stock, and also for manufacturing and other purposes, to an extent that is not unreasonable, bearing in mind the size of the stream.