Mullin v. Pennsylvania R.

Citations

• 125 Pa. 189
• 17 A. 478
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 706

Syllabus

<p>1. A delay of six years, and sometimes less, will be regarded as laches sufficient to stay the intervention of equity; especially where the complainant has stood by and allowed the defendant to make large expenditures upon the subject-matter in controversy.</p> <p>2. Where a bill prays for an injunction, for damages, and for other relief, and it appears that an injunction is not necessary to the full and adequal e relief of the complainant, but that he can be fully compensated by damages, the injunction will not be granted.</p> <p>(a) Under an Orphans’ Court sale certain land was sold in two tracts in 1821. A stream of water passed through both tracts, of which the owner of one tract was the dominant, and of the other the servient owner.</p> <p>(b) The deed for the former tract contained the following grant: “Also the right and privilege of taking and conveying the stream of water which passes through the adjoining tract, sold to Dowling and reserved from him for the use of this tract, to be conducted where it formerly was, for the purpose of erecting water-works.”</p> <p>(c) The deed for the latter tract contained the following reservation: “ Taking and reserving to the use of the adjoining tract, sold to Parke, aright and privilege of taking and conveying the stream of water which runs through the above described tract,.....where it has been formerly taken, for the purpose of erecting water-works.”</p> <p>(d) There was evidence that in 1821 there was a small turning mill on P.’s tract run by water taken by a race from said stream. The mill was abandoned soon afterwards and the stream used thereafter by P. and D. for agricultural purposes only. In 1875 P.’s grantee conveyed the water of the stream, by pipes, to a reservoir and stand pipe a mile distant, where it was used for railroad purposes.</p> <p>(e) In 1882, D.’s successor in title, who had owned the land since 1869, filed a bill in equity praying for an injunction against the railroad company defendant, to