Commonwealth v. Royce
25 A. 162, 152 Pa. 88, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1175
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 7, 1892·No. Appeal, No. 163·Published·Cited by 9 cases
Opinion
We are of opinion that the court below was right in directing a verdict for the defendants. Even if we concede there was sufficient evidence of the acceptance of the street by the public authorities of the borough of East Brady, such acceptance was merely of the street as it had been actually opened and used. The evidence shows that the fence complained of was not upon the opened and traveled part of the highway. It follows that it was not a public nuisance.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Royce, 25 A. 162, 152 Pa. 88, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1175 (Pa. 1892).
25 A. 162 (Commonwealth v. Royce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Schoen v. VanHart
29 Pa. D. & C.3d 616 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1983)
Elliott v. H. B. Alexander & Son, Inc.
399 A.2d 1130 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Commonwealth v. MacDonald
347 A.2d 290 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Borough of Milford v. Burnett
87 Pa. Super. 588 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Hileman v. Hollidaysburg Borough
47 Pa. Super. 41 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Fleck v. Collins
28 Pa. Super. 443 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Oakley v. Luzerne Borough
25 Pa. Super. 425 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Washington Female Seminary v. Washington Borough
18 Pa. Super. 555 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Commonwealth v. Shoemaker
14 Pa. Super. 194 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)