McGeorge v. Hoffman

Citations

• 133 Pa. 381
• 19 A. 413
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 914

Syllabus

<p>1. The fact that a landowner has made complaint to the owner of a mill dam on an adjoining tract, that the water in the dam is raised to too great a height, unaccompanied by any interference with the use of the water by the mill owner, the bringing of any suit against him, or the making of any adjustment with Mm, is not evidence of the existence of any controversy such as would affect the acquisition by user of a right to maintain the water at the height complained of.</p> <p>2. The extent of such an easement, acquired by long continued user, is measured by the extent to which the servient tenement is overflowed; and the height of the water at its ordinary level, as compared with known water-mai'ks, and the extent of land covered by it at its ordinary stages, are proper evidence upon the question whether the mill owner has acquired by adverse user the right to raise the water in his dam to a particular height: Gehman v. Erdman, 105 Pa. 371, explained.</p> <p>3. While there is no statute that gives title to the easement of flooding the laud of another by adverse user, the fact that in charging the jury the court inadvertently made reference to the statute of limitations as giving such a title, intending to refer to the well-established rule of law under which adverse user for twenty-one years does confer title to the easement, in strict analogy to that statute, could do no harm and was not ground for reversal.</p>