Commonwealth v. Stevens
Citations
- 178 Pa. 543
- 36 A. 166
- 1897 Pa. LEXIS 984
Syllabus
<p>Equity — Equity practice — Gonclusiveness of findings of court — Injurious obstruction of stream.</p> <p>The findings of the court under the new equity rules, like the findings of a master under the old practice, will not be set aside on appeal if they appear to have been authorized by the evidence.</p> <p>The finding of the lower court, based on sufficient evidence, that the erection of a wall in a stream would cause the water of the stream in times of freshets to overflow a considerable portion of a borough, to the injury of the property and health of its inhabitants, will not be set aside on appeal.</p> <p>Equity — Waters—Injunction.</p> <p>A court of equity will enjoin a person from constructing a wall in a stream, thereby causing a public nuisance, without waiting until it has been determined in a common law action that the person proposing to build the wall had no right to do so.</p> <p>Wafers — Little Juniata river — Borough of Tyrone — Act of June 8, 1891 —Equity—Injunction.</p> <p>Under the act of June 8, 1891, P. L. 210, a borough has the right to widen and deepen within its limits the channel of a stream, and to prevent the erection of any wall or other obstruction therein which will increase the danger from floods and freshets to the property and lives of its inhabitants.</p> <p>In 1894 the borough of Tyrone passed an ordinance for the widening of the Little Juniata river within the borough limits. After the passage of the ordinance two of the owners of lots in the borough proceeded to erect a wall in the stream opposite their property. On a bill in equity filed against them by the borough, the court found as a fact that the wall would be a public nuisance in times of freshets, and awarded an injunction. Held, that the decree continuing the injunction should be affirmed, subject, however, to proper modification of it by the court below, if the borough should refuse or neglect to prosecute with due diligence the work of widening the channel in substant
Judges: Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Steinmeyer v. SiebertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1899-03-27· cited 42×
- Strause v. BergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1908-03-02· cited 24×
- Hancock v. MelloySupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1898-10-17· cited 20×
- Mackintyre v. JonesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1899-03-23· cited 11×
- Canavan v. PayeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1907-10-07· cited 5×
- Edwards v. WoodruffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1904-07-28· cited 4×
- Italo French Produce Co. v. ThomasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1905-07-13· cited 4×
- Gay v. ChambersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1908-07-15· cited 4×
- Houser's CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1914-04-20· cited 3×
- Obney v. ObneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1904-07-28· cited 2×
- Davis v. WilligSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1914-03-12· cited 2×
- Borough v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1912-01-02· cited 1×
- Wentzel's Assigned EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1906-03-12· cited 1×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.