Case ID: pa_212/html/0115-01.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

Roaring Creek Water Company v. Anthracite Coal Company of Pittsburg, Appellant.
    
      Equity—Injunction—Preliminary injunction—Water—Pollution of stream.
    
    A preliminary injunction will be granted against a coal company where on the hearing it is developed that the defendant was pumping impure water which had accumulated in a coal mine into a stream where it polluted •the supply of drinking water for more than 30,000 people, when by the construction of a flume at trifling expense the mine water could be discharged into another water course where it would injure no one.
    Argued March 27, 1905.
    Appeal, No. 85, Jan. T., 1905, by defendants, from decree of O. C. Northumberland Co., No. 273, in Equity granting preliminary injunction in case of Roaring Creek Water Company v. Anthracite Coal Company of Pitts-burg et al.
    Before Fell, Brown, Mestkezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    
      Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Auten, J.
    
      Error assigned was decree granting preliminary injunction.
    
      Q. M. Clement, M. H. Taggart and M. Laura Cannon, for appellant.
    
      S. P. Wolverton, for appellee.
    May 15, 1905 :
   Per Curiam,

This appeal is from a decree granting a preliminary injunction. In accordance with the practice of the court we withhold any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy until after final hearing and decree, and determine only whether on the facts developed an injunction should have been granted or refused. It was shown at the hearing that the defendants were pumping impure water which had accumulated in a coal mine into a stream where it polluted the supply of drinking water for more than 30,000 people, when by the construction of a flume at a trifling expense the mine water could be discharged into another water course where it would injure no one. The case was clearly one for the granting’ of a preliminary injunction.

The decree of the' court is affirmed at the cost of the appellants.