McElhone v. McManes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL EBOM THE COUBT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 55 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 540 September Term 1886, C. P. On October 18, 1886, a bill in equity was filed by Thomas McElhone against James McManes, owner, and George F. Payne and Charles W. Wetter, trading as George F. Payne & Co., for an injunction to restrain the defendants from laying a drain-pipe in the soil of an alley, the title to which was claimed to he in the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EBOM THE COUBT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 55 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 540 September Term 1886, C. P. On October 18, 1886, a bill in equity was filed by Thomas McElhone against James McManes, owner, and George F. Payne and Charles W. Wetter, trading as George F. Payne & Co., for an injunction to restrain the defendants from laying a drain-pipe in the soil of an alley, the title to which was claimed to he in the plaintiff. The cause being put at issue by answers and replication, Mr. James W. Latta was appointed examiner, who, on June 10, 1887,…
1Opinion of the Court
*609Opinion,
Mr. Justice Clark:
It is conceded that Thomas McElhone, the plaintiff, is the owner of the fee of the locus in quo; that the boundaries of his deed embrace the soil of the alley in dispute, and' that James McManes, the defendant, against the protest of the plaintiff, placed his sewer-pipe in the alley five or six feet below the surface of the ground, in order to connect his six new houses on Thirty-sixth street with the public sewer on Haverford. It is clearly established, also, that the alley was laid out some thirty years ago by William Peterson, who was at the time the owner of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Alstad v. BoyerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Steinogle v. Pittsburg, Mckeesport & Youghiogheny RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914