Rohrer v. Rohrer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county. This was a suit depending in the Common Pleas on an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The suit was brought by Christian Rohrer against John Rohrer to recover $19.80 for making a division fence. Christian and John Rohrer owned adjoining improved lands; a lane had existed for above 24 years at one end of the farms occupied by them.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county. This was a suit depending in the Common Pleas on an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The suit was brought by Christian Rohrer against John Rohrer to recover $19.80 for making a division fence. Christian and John Rohrer owned adjoining improved lands; a lane had existed for above 24 years at one end of the farms occupied by them. Christian Rohrer claimed the lane as belonging to him, and John Rohrer removed his fence back so far as to leave a lane on Ms own land, and Christian placed a fence on the line of the old lane upon the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered, by
Woodward, J.
“When any two persons shall improve lands adjacent to each other; or where any person shall enclose any land adjoining to another’s land already fenced in, so that any part of. the first- person’s fence becomes the partition fence between them,” are the two cases provided for in the Act of Assembly of 11th March, 1842, for regulating and maintaining line fences: Dunlop 954. In either of these cases, the expense of the partition fence is to be equally borne and maintained by both parties. But if one of the adjacent improvers abandon the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Barber v. MenschSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Carey v. SchweitzerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1926
- Odenwelder v. FrankenfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893