56 Pa. Super. 59 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1914
Opinion by
It seems not to be disputed that the two pipes laid under the fill made by the defendant were insufficient to permit the passage of the water flowing in Little
The plaintiff did not rely wholly, however, on the evidence that the floods were of an ordinary character but contended and offered evidence to show that the outlet was not only insufficient in size but was so con
The jury could not have misunderstood the answers of the learned trial judge to the plaintiff’s second and thirteenth points. They had reference to the injuries set forth in the declaration and which were the subject of consideration during the progress of the trial. The only damage which the plaintiff claimed was that resulting from the floods in September and October, 1911. Whatever the jury found to have been the plaintiff’s loss by reason of any of these floods as disclosed by the testimony would be the basis of the verdict, and we must assume that the conclusion of the jury was limited and controlled by the testimony. We are not convinced that the court erred in any material way in the trial of the case.
The judgment is affirmed.