Commonwealth v. Barker

21 A. 243, 140 Pa. 189, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 827
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 16, 1891·No. No. 92·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We do not think the learned judge below erred in instructing the jury that the defendant had the right to take up the board walk in front of his premises. It was placed there by him, or by his permission, for his own convenience. His doing so was in no sense a dedication of it to the public, nor was [193] there evidence of its acceptance by the township authorities. The fact that it was used by some of the neighbors on their way to the railroad station, would not constitute an acceptance of it. Had there been such acceptance, it would then have been the duty of the supervisor to keep it in repair. As the matter stood, there was no such duty on the part of the township. On the contrary, had it become dangerous and an accident occurred by reason thereof, Mr. Barker might have been responsible in damages. At most, it was a very trifling matter, and hardly worth the trouble and expense it has occasioned.

Judgment affirmed.

On March 9, 1891, a motion for a re-argument was refused.

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

Commonwealth v. Barker, 21 A. 243, 140 Pa. 189, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 827 (Pa. 1891).

21 A. 243 (Commonwealth v. Barker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Milford Borough v. Burnett
136 A. 669 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Hatch v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co.
141 N.Y.S. 1055 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)