Long v. Trexler

Citations

• 5 Sadler 456
• 8 A. 620
• 1887 Pa. LEXIS 586

Syllabus

<p>A judgment in trespass on the case recovered by a lbwer against an upper riparian owner, for diminishing the natural itow of the stream and polluting it by ore washing and mine drainage, although entered on a verdict which did not specify the causes for which damages were assessed, is, in a. subsequent action for a continuance of the same acts, conclusive evidence that the defendant has no right to divert the water of the stream.</p> <p>The pollution of the stream by mine drainage is damnum absque injuria, but, although considered in the former action, bore on the measure of damages only, and did not affect the validity of the judgment for the purpose of estoppel.</p> <p>‘ Note. — Similar determinations are found in Rockwell v. Langley, 19 Pa. 502; Whetstone v. Bowser, 29 Pa. 59; Bush v. Gamble, 127 Pa. 43, 17 Atl. 865; Hartman v. Pittsburg Incline Plane Co. 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 123, 39 W. N. C. 27, 27 Pittsb. L. J. N. S. 146; Hartman v. Pittsburg Incline Plane Co. 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 438. As to pollution of stream by mining operations, including drainage of mines, see Farnham, Waters, pp. 1694-1698. For a presentation of. the Pennsylvania rule, with regard to the pollution of water by the drainage of mines, see the same author at p. 1699.</p>