Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

Kunkle, Appellant, v. Ford City Borough.

Waters — Definition of watercourse — Words and phrases — Obstruction — Obstruction of channel — Surface water.

1. A watercourse is a stream of water usually flowing in a definite channel having a bed and sides or banks, and discharging itself into some other stream or body of water. [419-420]

2. To constitute a watercourse, there must be unmistakable evidence of frequent action of running water, and a distinction is to be taken between a regular flowing stream of water, which at certain seasons is dried up, and those occasional bursts of water which in times of freshets or storms descend from the hills and inundate the country. [420]

3. Whilst the owner of a lot at the foot of a slope is under no obligation to allow his lot to continue as a reservoir for the surplus water of the neighborhood, yet he may not obstruct a natural channel for the flow of the water, or a channel that has acquired the character of an easement, and may not gather surface water into a body and discharge it on the adjoining land. His right is to shut out the invading water, as a common enemy, for the protection of his own land. [419]

Eminent domain — Municipalities — Diversion of water — Viewers.

4. Public bodies are liable for injury caused by diverting rainwater from its natural channel and casting it upon private property. [419]

5. A proceeding before viewers as provided by the Act of 1915, P. L. 312, section 1, article II, chapter 6, and not an action of trespass is the appropriate remedy against a borough for the alleged injury to obstructing a watercourse, caused by street improvements, which is the direct, immediate, necessary, and unavoidable consequence of the exercise of a power conferred upon the borough. [421]

Submitted October 9, 1931.

PER CURIAM, November 23, 1931:

The lower court clearly reached the proper determination of this case and its action in refusing to take off the nonsuit is affirmed on the opinion of the learned trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KUNKLE v. FORD CITY BOROUGH
(Nov 23, 1931)