Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Pennyp. 101

Kunes v. Spangler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 27, 1882

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1882-02-27

Case by Lucinda Spangler against Samuel H. Kunes, to recover damages for an alleged nuisance. On the trial in the Court below, before Mayer, P. J., the plaintiff gave evidence as follows: The plaintiff was the owner of a house and lot in Eagle-ville, Centre County, Pa. On this property was a well of water fifty-five feet deep. The water was of good quality, and large in quantity, and was used for family purposes.

Decided 1882-02-27

— Per Curiam:

¶1The assignments of error are not in conformity to our rules. We think, however, the evidence was ample to justify the Court in submit*103ting the case to the jury. Without considering the instructions as to the measui’e of damages, it is plain that the jury did not follow it, and there was no harm done to the plaintiff in error. The assignment of error to that part of the charge is in direct violation of the rule of Court that, “when the error assigned is to the charge of the Court, the part of the charge referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the specification.” “Any assignment of error not according to this will be held the same as none:" Criswell v. Altemus, 8 Harris, 124.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/2/pennyp/101 · .json · Public domain