Standard Plate Glass Co. v. Butler Water Co.

Citations

• 5 Pa. Super. 563
• 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 286

Syllabus

<p>Riparian rights — Upper and lower owners — Use of waters.</p> <p>Ownership of land does not include ownership of the water which flows over or past it. The right which the owner has is to the use of it in common with the other owners as an incident to the land.</p> <p>For many purposes — for example, for domestic use and for watering cattle — the riparian owner may divert, detain and even consume the water without regard to the effect which such use may have, in case of deficiency, upon proprietors lower down the stream; but he has not in all respects an equal right thus to divert, detain or consume the water for purposes, which, although the same in kind, are in no way connected with the use of the land.</p> <p>Water and water rights — Illegal diversion — Right of action.</p> <p>An illegal diversion of water,by an upper riparian owner is a continuing injury and is not referable to the day when first commenced, but successive actions may be brought as long as it is continued.</p> <p>The purchaser of an estate upon a stream from which others have unreasonably diverted the water is entitled to recover if such diversion is continued.</p> <p>Riparian rights run with land — Eminent domain.</p> <p>Riparian rights are incident to the ownership of the banks of the watercourse. They run with the land. They may be granted away or be extinguished by condemnation proceedings or by prescription, but cannot be defeated by simple appropriation.</p> <p>Riparian rights — Diversion of waters — Water company and glass company.</p> <p>A water company being an upper riparian owner, and a glass company a lower riparian owner, have the rights of riparian owners only to the stream on which they abut; it follows that the latter may maintain an action to recover such actual and special damages as it sustained in consequence of the detention and diversion of the water notwithstanding its predecessor in title had a right of action in which he could have recovered nominal damages for the inf