Case Name: FARRELL VS. THE KINGSESSING AND TINICUM MEADOW COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1885-01-26
Citations: 2 Walk. 502
Docket Number: Nos. 262, 263, 264 and 265
Parties: FARRELL VS. THE KINGSESSING AND TINICUM MEADOW COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
FARRELL VS. THE KINGSESSING AND TINICUM MEADOW COMPANY.
- Where a meadow company is authorized to levy taxes for expenses for draining-lands,.an affidavit of defence, setting forth that the company lia'd neglected to drain defendant’s land properly, and thereby injured him, is insufficient.
Error to the Common Pleas, No. 3 of Philadelphia County, Nos. 262, 263, 264 and 265 Jan. Term, 1884.
These are actions of Sci. Fa. Sur. claims against four lots of' meadow land in the 27th ward in the City of Philadelphia, for what is called meadow taxes. Under an Act of Assembly,, approved April 3,1851, P. L. 338; The Kingsessing and Tinicum Meadow Co. consisting of the owners of meadow lands,, bordering on the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers, Darby creek,. &c., in the 27th ward of the City of Philadelphia and Delaware County, in the State of Pennsylvania, were incorporated. Under-said act they were authorized to drain said meadow lands, and to-erect and maintain banks, sluices, and drains for that pui’pose p to levy taxes or assessments to- cover the expenses incurred, and to file liens for said taxes, and to proceed upon the same in the same manner, as in cities, upon mechanics liens. An affidavit, of defence was filed, to the effect, that the said Co., instead of keeping and maintaining the sluices in good order and repair, have caused them to be closed up, or blinded, thereby causing the water to lay for a long time, on the meadows owned by the-plaintiff in error, by means of which he has been greatly damaged by the loss of his crops, &c. On the 22d of Dec., 1883, the-Court made the rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence absolute, and assessed the damages at $84.40. Farrell then took a writ of error, complaining of the action of the Court in entering the judgment.
Charles H. Downing, Esq., for plaintiff in error,
argued that if the company did not furnish the proper drainage they are not entitled to recover the taxes or assessments for doing that which they have failed to do.
Jos. J. Knox and A. H. Smith, Esqs., for defendants in error,,
argued that unliquidated damages arising from tort, as claimed by the plaintiff, do not constitute a proper set off to this claim for taxes ; Meadow Co. vs. Farrell, 8 W. N. C. 502; Lehamier vs. Born, 1 W. N. C. 444. The Act incorporating the Meadow Co. is constitutional; Rutherford vs. Maynes, 1 Out. 78; Garrett vs. Kilpatrick, 13 W. N. C. 384.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court below on the 26th of January, 1885, in the following opinion:
Per Curiam.
This judgment was taken for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The constitutionality of an act of the same character as the one in question has been affirmed ; Rutherford vs. Maynes, 1 Out. 78. The company is authorized to make assessments and collect them as provided in the act. Every owner of lands situate within the district must hold those lands subject to the taxing power designated by the statute. He cannot interpose as a bar to their recovery, the negligent or improper manner in which the managers of the company have constructed or maintained sluices.
Judgment affirmed.