Vandersloot v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co.

Citations

• 259 Pa. 99
• 102 A. 422
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 524

Syllabus

<p>Equity jurisdiction — Injury to real estate within county — Foreign defendant — Leave to serve outside of county — Acts of June 18, 18S6, P. L. 568; March 17, 1856, P. L. 388; April 6,1859, P. L. 889; April S, 1908, P. L, 1S9, and June 5, 1915, P. L. 8117 — Equity Rule 10 — Construction of dam —Overflowing of waters — Dam partly in another county — Bill by Hparian owner — Belief affecting entire dam — Belief in personam.</p> <p>1. It is against the policy of the jurisprudence of this State to bring nonresidents within the jurisdiction of our courts unless in very special cases, and the Act of April 6, 1859, P. L. 389, providing that any court having equity jurisdiction may upon due application authorize service outside the jurisdiction of the court in any suit “concerning......lands, tenements and hereditaments ......situated or being within the jurisdiction of such court,” is to be construed in harmony with such policy.</p> <p>2. Service of a bill in equity outside of the jurisdiction of the court in which it is filed cannot properly be allowed under the authority of the Act of 1859, where the prayers for relief are not confined entirely to property alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the court, and where the relief, if granted, would require a decree against the defendant personally.</p> <p>3. A bill in equity brought in York County against a Pennsylvania corporation to compel the removal of a dam which was partly in York County and partly in Lancaster County, and which was alleged to cause waters to overflow complainant’s land in York County, was, by leave of the York County court, served on officers of the defendant in New York, where the company’s principal office was located, and in Lancaster County, where its mills were situated. The prayers of the bill' comprehended relief afEecting the entire dam of the defendant, and also relief requiring a decree against the defendant personally. Held, the service was not within the authority of the Act of 1859, o