Carpenter v. Wolf
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 185, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster County, Oct. T., 1917, No. 53, for defendant non obstante veredicto in the case of Davis Carpenter v. Horace J. Wolf. Assumpsit to recover part of the expense of repairing a line fence. Before Landis, P. J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $21.20. Judgment for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 185, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster County, Oct. T., 1917, No. 53, for defendant non obstante veredicto in the case of Davis Carpenter v. Horace J. Wolf. Assumpsit to recover part of the expense of repairing a line fence. Before Landis, P. J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $21.20. Judgment for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. cited: Turner v. Richards, 34 Pa. Superior Ct. 624; Kircher v. Sprenger, 4 Pa. Superior…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
The parties to this action are the owners of adjoining properties, and suit is brought by one against the other to recover the cost of a portion of the partition fence between the properties. The proceedings were had under the Act of April 14, 1905, P. L. 162. That statute provides for the erection of line or division fences, and upon the failure of one of the owners to do his share in maintaining the fence, the other may notify the township or borough auditors, and if they find the fence insufficient, they make report to a justice of the peace. The act further provides…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rutherford's CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
- Shriver v. StephensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852