Piro v. Shipley
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 38, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1904, No. 1,715, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Pasquale Piro v. Samuel R. Shipley et al., trustees under the will of Stephen Smith, deceased. Trespass to recover damages to real estate. Before Biddle, P. J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, P. J.,
In May, 1903, and for some years prior thereto, the plaintiff was the owner in fee of the premises situate on the southeast corner of Ninth and Christian streets in the city of Philadelphia. In connection therewith he had an easement in the adjoining premises, owned by the defendants, entitling him, along with the owners or their tenants, to the use of a hydrant, outhouse, alleyway, etc. On May 22, 1903, he filed a bill in equity alleging such acts done or threatened by the defendants as would *280constitute a continuing and permanent trespass resulting in the destruction of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Packet Co. v. SicklesSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Coleman's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Schwan v. KellySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Piro v. ShipleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Allison's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- McCarthy v. Township of McCandlessCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Haefele v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Mansfield v. ReddingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Grunberg v. LouisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
- Bilheimer v. BethlehemSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.