Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mulville Et Ux. v. Cooper Et Ux.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 1927No. Appeal 385Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Keller, J.:

It was admitted at the argument that no testimony had been received on the trial as to any actual interference with the plaintiffs’ use of the four-foot wide common alley caused by the defendants’ rain-spout occupying a space from four to six inches in diameter, adjoining their dwelling. The judge’s finding that the spout was “a real and substantial infringement of plaintiffs’ rights” was therefore a legal conclusion rather than a finding of fact.

There is no reasonable doubt, under the decisions, that the defendants ’ title extends to the middle of. the alley,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Connery v. BrookeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
  2. Hartman v. FickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  3. Oliver v. OrmsbySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  4. National Accident & Insurance v. Workmen's Circle Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  5. Duross v. SingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API