Limerick & Colebrookedale Turnpike Co.'s Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Limerick & Colebrookedale Turnpike Co.'s Appeal

80 Pa. 425, 1876 Pa. LEXIS 69

DecidedJanuary 31, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 80 Pa. 425 (Limerick & Colebrookedale Turnpike Co.'s Appeal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Limerick & Colebrookedale Turnpike Co.'s Appeal, 80 Pa. 425, 1876 Pa. LEXIS 69 (Pa. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court,

Per Curiam.

The defendant found himself subjected to a flow of water far beyond that which had theretofore usually flowed upon his premises from the turnpike road above. He clearly had a right to protect his property from the utter destruction which threatened it, by damming off this extraordinary flood. Whether this was caused by the unlawful acts of others by throwing the ■waters into a channel along the turnpike to his premises, or by the act of the company, his right to protect his property from this unusual flow was the same. Therefore, under the prayers of the bill, and the findings of fact, we cannot say the court below erred in dismissing the bill.

Decree affirmed with costs and appeal dismissed.

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

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court,

Per Curiam.

The defendant found himself subjected to a flow of water far beyond that which had theretofore usually flowed upon his premises from the turnpike road above. He clearly had a right to protect his property from the utter destruction which threatened it, by damming off this extraordinary flood. Whether this was caused by the unlawful acts of others by throwing the ■waters into a channel along the turnpike to his premises, or by the act of the company, his right to protect his property from this unusual flow was the same. Therefore, under the prayers of the bill, and the findings of fact, we cannot say the court below erred in dismissing the bill.

Decree affirmed with costs and appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 Pa. 425, 1876 Pa. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/limerick-colebrookedale-turnpike-cos-appeal-pa-1876.