Palo Alto Road
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 29, Jau. T., 1894, by Thomas F. Wright, admr. c. t. a. of Benj. Haywood, deceased, a property owner, from order of Q. S. Schuylkill Co., dismissing exceptions to report of viewers vacating street. Exceptions to report of viewers vacating street.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 29, Jau. T., 1894, by Thomas F. Wright, admr. c. t. a. of Benj. Haywood, deceased, a property owner, from order of Q. S. Schuylkill Co., dismissing exceptions to report of viewers vacating street. Exceptions to report of viewers vacating street. Opinion of court below was as follows, by Bechtel, J.: “ Has the court jurisdiction, and if so should the report be confirmed ? Palo Alto was incorporated by virtue of the act of May 29, 1854, and made subject to the general borough act of 1851. It is claimed that as the portion of the road which is to be vacated under this report is now…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
The facts of this case and the questions arising thereon are clearly and accurately stated by the learned judge of the court of quarter sessions. In concluding to dismiss the exceptions and confirm the report of the viewers for the reasons stated in his opinion we think he was clearly right and the decree is affirmed thereon.
Decree affirmed on the opinion of the court below, with costs to be paid by appellant.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Road in Cassville BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- McCall v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Turkey Run Fuels, Inc. AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Bristol Township RoadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Curtis v. Pittsburgh, McKeesport & Youghiogheny RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.