Williams v. Esling
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. Jan. 25. Case for obstructing a close, over which plaintiff in right of his estate had a right of way. On the trial, before Jones, P. J., the plaintiff proved a right of way over a court about a hundred and forty-six feet deep, and twenty-six feet wide; the entrance from the public street was narrowed to the ordinary width of a cart-way.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. Jan. 25. Case for obstructing a close, over which plaintiff in right of his estate had a right of way. On the trial, before Jones, P. J., the plaintiff proved a right of way over a court about a hundred and forty-six feet deep, and twenty-six feet wide; the entrance from the public street was narrowed to the ordinary width of a cart-way. He also proved, that defendant having a stable standing on one side of the court, had used it at various times to deposit and take in lumber, hay, &c., and to carry out dung. His honour…
1Opinion of the Court
Gibson, C. J
An action was maintained in Kirkham «. Sharp, 1 Whart. Rep. 333, by the grantee of a private way, *488against the owner of the soil, standing in the place of the grantor; and avowedly without proof of special damage, or actual obstruction in any particular instance. The necessity of suui proof was not even alleged. The difference between that case and this, is, that the action here is not, as it was there, against the owner of the soil, but against an intruder without 'any pretence of title whatever—a difference that will scarce be thought to be unfavourable to the present plaintiff.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pastorius v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
3Cited by2 opinions
- Schienle v. EckelsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Devlin v. SnellenburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890