Wakeling v. Cocker
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 285, Oct. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 798, dismissing bill in equity in case of Samuel Wakeling v. Edwin F. Cocker and George Gray. Bill in equity for an injunction.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 285, Oct. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 798, dismissing bill in equity in case of Samuel Wakeling v. Edwin F. Cocker and George Gray. Bill in equity for an injunction. Bregy, J., found the facts to be as follows: 1. The plaintiff, Samuel Wakeling, Esq., is the owner of the property No. 4528 Frankford avenue, which is a double three-story brick residence with a cornice projecting about two feet along the front and sides of the building. 2. The defendant, Edwin F. Cocker, is the owner of the property No. 4527 Frankford Avenue,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Oklady, J.,
The bill in equity, filed by the plaintiff, might well have been dismissed for other reasons than the one given by the court below. There was no proof of irreparable injury, and the terms of the contract or arrangement by which the cornice in dispute was originally erected was not shown in proof. Nor is there any testimony as to any change of the location of the legally established building line on Frankford avenue. To sustain the appellant’s contention would be to authorize the maintenance of the cornice over a highway of the city. A mere legal right in the plaintiff…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. AlburgerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Hancock v. MelloySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Barlott v. ForneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Kopf v. UtterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Wartman v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bruker v. Carlisle BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Bruker v. Carlisle BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954