Kraft v. Hanover & McSherrystown Water Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania June 27, 1913

Kraft v. Hanover & McSherrystown Water Co., 242 Pa. 114 (Pa. 1913)

88 A. 909; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 848

Brown, Mesteezat, Moschzisker, Pell, Potter

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action of trespass to recover damages caused by the pumping of water from a stream that furnished power for the plaintiff’s mill. The assignments of error mainly relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to show the extent of the diminution of the volume of water and *120á causal connection between tbe act of the defendant and the injury complained of. All questions raised by the appeal are satisfactorily disposed of in the opinion of the learned president judge of the Common Pleas, on which we affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Kraft v. Hanover & McSherrystown Water Company
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Waters — Water companies — Biversion of water — Mills—Measure of damages — Evidence—Question for jury. 1. In an action to recover damages for the alleged unlawful diversion by the defendant of the waters of a stream on which plaintiff’s mill was located, by pumping water therefrom at various times within six years before the bringing of the action, it appeared that' after defendant’s pumping station had been installed, a sensible diminution in the flow of water had occurred, though the amount of water withdrawn did not appear. PlaintifE contended that he was thereby compelled to use power and to incur additional expense in the operation of his mill, and sought to measure his damages by these outlays. There was evidence that the diminution in the flow of water was not due entirely to defendant’s pumping. The jury was instructed that plaintiff could recover only for such expenditures as were compelled by defendant’s acts, and fdund á verdict for plaintiff which the court held excessive and reduced to a sum reasonable under the evidence for which judgment was entered. Held, no error. 2. ,In such a case the introduction of evidence of the average amount of water in the stream for a period prior to the installation of defendant’s pumping station was not prejudicial to defendant, .where it appeared therefrom that the water was at times so low that auxiliary power was required to run plaintiff’s mill.