McKinley v. Ulery
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 21, April T., 1911, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., Nov. Term, 1909, No. 80, on verdict for defendants in case of Frank B. McKinley et al. v. W. H. Ulery et al. Trespass quiere clausum fregit. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs for SI.00. Oh a motion by defendants for judgment n. o. v. McIlvaine, P. J., filed the following opinion: QUESTION AT ISSUE.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 21, April T., 1911, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., Nov. Term, 1909, No. 80, on verdict for defendants in case of Frank B. McKinley et al. v. W. H. Ulery et al. Trespass quiere clausum fregit. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs for SI.00. Oh a motion by defendants for judgment n. o. v. McIlvaine, P. J., filed the following opinion: QUESTION AT ISSUE. The defendant, W. H. Ulery, tore down a wire fence about twelve feet long on the plaintiffs’ lot, because, as he claimed, it obstructed a right of way that he and his co-defendant had over…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
Some time prior to January 1, 1853, William Hopkins, the common ancestor in title of plaintiffs and defendants, became the owner of a parcel of ground in the borough of Washington on the southwest corner of Wheeling and College streets. The parcel as a whole had a frontage of 120 feet along Wheeling street and 160 feet along College street. It consisted of the major portion of two lots *362Nos. 44 and 45, as originally platted in that portion of the town. These lots each fronted sixty feet on Wheeling street and extended of uniform width southward 240 feet to what is now known…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harvey v. VandegriftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- King v. New York & Cleveland Gas Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Cook v. BabcockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1851
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hoffman v. BuchananSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924