Hartman v. Fick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 225, July T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., June T., 1893, No. 76, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for removal of a gate constructed across a right of way. Before Eementrout, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff and defendant were owners of adjoining farms.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 225, July T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., June T., 1893, No. 76, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for removal of a gate constructed across a right of way. Before Eementrout, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff and defendant were owners of adjoining farms. Defendant’s predecessors in title acquired, by prescription, a right of way for ordinary agricultural and farm pui-poses through ten acres of uninclosed woodland of plaintiff. Three years prior to the trial of the case plaintiff cleared the land for cultivation and for the purpose of keeping…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
This case was greatly simplified by what transpired in the court below at the conclusion of the trial. The plaintiff conceded the defendant’s right of way over his land, and the defendant conceded in effect that the gate erected by the plaintiff across the right of way for the protection of his fields was not an unreasonable obstruction to, or interference with, the right of passage. This left no question undisposed of except that of the legal right of the owner of the land to protect his fields by such a gate or other structure as should not unreasonably interfere with the use of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Connery v. BrookeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
3Cited by17 opinions
- Taylor v. HeffnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Luster v. GarnerTennessee Supreme Court · 1913
- Dyba Et Ux. v. BorowitzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Boyd v. BloomIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Flener v. LawrenceCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.