Dysart v. Leeds
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon county. May 22.- — -This was an action of trespass — pleas, non cul. and lib. ten. It appeared that Dysart, the plaintiff below, was the owner of a tract of land on which ivas a worm fence erected many years since. The defendant owned the adjoining tract, and had placed a fence near that of plaintiff, and in a line with it, leaving a narrow lane between them, closed by a fence at one end.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon county. May 22.- — -This was an action of trespass — pleas, non cul. and lib. ten. It appeared that Dysart, the plaintiff below, was the owner of a tract of land on which ivas a worm fence erected many years since. The defendant owned the adjoining tract, and had placed a fence near that of plaintiff, and in a line with it, leaving a narrow lane between them, closed by a fence at one end. The trespass complained of was the continuation of a fence on defendant’s land, across the unenclosed end of the lane, up to the fence on plaintiff’s land, and…
1Per curiam
— An occupant is not bound to join in a division-fence. He may set his fence, if it please him, not on the line of division but within it; and if his neighbour extend his fence across the line to join it, it is a trespass.
But if the one party set his fence on the very line, the other may not only join a panel of his fence to it, but insert the rails into it so as to extend a few inches beyond it; for when the charge assessed by the fence-viewers is answered, it becomes common property, and the use of it beyond the strict bounds of the license falls within the bounds of the maxim de minimis.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Barber v. MenschSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Rich v. StephensUtah Supreme Court · 1932