Mulville Et Ux. v. Cooper Et Ux.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Connery v. BrookeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Hartman v. FickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Oliver v. OrmsbySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- National Accident & Insurance v. Workmen's Circle Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Duross v. SingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.