Brown v. Kistler

42 A. 885, 190 Pa. 499, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1051
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 27, 1899·No. Appeal, No. 60·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

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 [509]*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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brown v. Kistler, 42 A. 885, 190 Pa. 499, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1051 (Pa. 1899).

42 A. 885 (Brown v. Kistler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

David v. Philadelphia Electric Co.
535 A.2d 729 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
In re Water Rights
39 Pa. D. & C. 261 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1940)
Rothrauff Et Ux. v. Sinking Spr. W. Co.
14 A.2d 87 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Forbes v. United States
52 Ct. Cl. 60 (Court of Claims, 1917)
Scranton Gas & Water Co. v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R.
88 A. 24 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)