James v. Sterrett

Citations

• 137 Pa. 234
• 20 A. 655
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 972

Syllabus

<p>1. When a declaration in trespass charged simply that the defendant maintained a dam “ higher than it ought to be,” thereby causing water to overflow the plaintiff’s land, and the only plea was not guilty, neither the pleadings, the verdict awarding to the plaintiff nominal damages, nor the judgment thereon, defined the lawful height to which the defendant might maintain the dam.</p> <p>2. Such judgment was conclusive only that the dam was maintained above the lawful height; and, as the slightest excess over that height would have entitled the plaintiff to a verdict, the defendant, when sued for a continuance of the nuisance after the judgment, might show that he had made a reduction in the height, and evidence of such reduction, however slight, raised a question of fact as to its sufficiency.</p> <p>3. When, in the second action, the parties submitted to arbitrators the question whether the defendant, after the former verdict “ sufficiently reduced ” the height of his dam, their award to be without appeal, and the arbitrators awarded that sufficient reduction had been made, the court could not set aside the award upon the sole ground that, in the opinion of the judge, there had been no substantial reduction made,</p> <p>4. When there is no suggestion that arbitrators misbehaved, or that their award was procured by corruption or other undue means, and no plain mistake of fact or law appears on the face of the award or by extrinsic evidence, the award being strictly responsive to the submission, the court may not reject the finding of the arbitrators on the question submitted, because not according with its own.</p>