Waldschmidt v. Glenfield Borough
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 127, April T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1908, No. 603, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Daniel Waldschmidt, et al., v. Glenfield Borough. Trespass for the alleged taking and injury of plaintiff’s property by reason of the grading, paving and improving of Kilbuck street in the Borough of Glenfield. Before Ford, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 127, April T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1908, No. 603, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Daniel Waldschmidt, et al., v. Glenfield Borough. Trespass for the alleged taking and injury of plaintiff’s property by reason of the grading, paving and improving of Kilbuck street in the Borough of Glenfield. Before Ford, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $350. Defendant appealed. .Error assigned, amongst others, was in refusing to enter judgment for plaintiff n. o. v. cited:…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kefhart, J.,
It was decided in Furniss v. Furniss, 29 Pa. 15, that “Where a public road has been opened, and worked on ground different from that marked out and reported by viewers, it will be a safe rule to extend its-breadth, when *540necessary, from the middle of the road so worked and used, to the limit allowed by law.” In order to some extent to relieve the severity of this rule, the legislature, by Act of June 19, 1901, P. L. 573, restricted its operation by providing that where the opened and used portion of a highway was within the lines of the road as originally surveyed “such…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Furniss v. FurnissSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lenhart v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Bartholomew v. BakerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940