Case ID: pa_203/html/0226-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Spring Brook Water Supply Company v. Pittston, Appellant.
    Argued April 17, 1902.
    Appeal, No. 103, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1899, No. 249, dismissing exceptions to referee’s report in case of Spring Brook Water Supply Company v. Pittston.
    Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Brown and Mestrezat, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    June 4, 1902:
   Per Curiam,

For the reason that the city of Pittston continued to use the water of the appellee after notice that it would have to pay for the same, the judgment against it for what the referee found the water was reasonably worth is affirmed.