Updegrove v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 249 Pa. 69
• 94 A. 462
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 677

Syllabus

<p>Evidence—Expert testimony—Hypothetical question—Admissibility—Release — Ambiguity— Variation by parol —Inadmissible evidence.</p> <p>1. Where in an action to recover damages for causing the flooding of plaintiff’s lands by changing the course of a river, there was evidence describing how an embankment erected by defendant encroached upon the river and the conditions which existed previous to and after such construction, it was not error to permit a hydraulic engineer, who had examined the embankment and heard the evidence relating to the conditions prior to and after the construction thereof to state his opinion as to what effect the construction of the embankment, as testified to, had upon plaintiff’s property as regards flooding by the river.</p> <p>2. Where in such case it appeared that plaintiff had released certain carrying companies, including defendant, certain coal companies and certain individuals engaged in mining coal, from dam ages caused by the deposit on plaintiff’s lands of mine water, culm, dirt, slate and refuse materials generally and'had “granted the use of said......river and its tributaries through the above described lands of the parties of the first part,” the words “the use of the river” referred only to such uses as were specifically described and enumerated in the earlier part of the release, and did not grant the right to erect an embankment in the river, and the fact that defendant railway company was included as a party to the release, although it was not an owner or lessee of coal lands, did not create such an ambiguity as to warrant the introduction of parol evidence to show that the embankment was contemplated by the parties when the release was executed.</p>