Allegheny Valley R. R. v. Colwell

15 A. 927, 2 Monag. 300, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 817
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 29, 1888·No. No. 176·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The judgment in this case must be affirmed; but, as Colwell was at least passively derelict in knowingly permitting the railroad company to occupy and put its improvements on his land, we agree that it would be inequitable to allow the judgment to work a forfeiture of those improvements. We therefore affirm the judgment, and direct a stay of execution, on payment of costs, for the period of four months; and, in the meantime, the company may proceed to condemn the land, and acquire the right of way in the manner prescribed by the Act of As.sembly in such case made and provided.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allegheny Valley R. R. v. Colwell, 15 A. 927, 2 Monag. 300, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 817 (Pa. 1888).

15 A. 927 (Allegheny Valley R. R. v. Colwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

King v. Union R. R. Co.
39 A.2d 831 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Sebree v. Huntingdon Water Supply Co.
72 Pa. Super. 553 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1919)
Davis v. Pennsylvania Pipe Lines
34 Pa. Super. 438 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Griswold v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
97 N.W. 538 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
Lewis v. St. Paul, M. &. M. Ry. Co.
58 N.W. 580 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
Graham v. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co.
22 A. 983 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1891)