Donohugh v. Lister

55 A. 23, 205 Pa. 464, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 595
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 4, 1903
DocketAppeal, No. 232
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 A. 23 (Donohugh v. Lister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donohugh v. Lister, 55 A. 23, 205 Pa. 464, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 595 (Pa. 1903).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff being the owner of houses on Branner’s court or Reese street and claiming that it was a private way, filed this bill against property holders whose lots abutted at the rear on Reese street, to enjoin the maintenance of a gateway from the lots into the said street and the use of the street as a passageway into Summer street.

The learned judge sitting as chancellor found that for more than forty years before the filing of the bill Branner’s court, now called Reese street, had been paved and used as a city street by the public, including the defendants, without objection by the plaintiff or his predecessors in title, that though no express dedication to public use appeared of record, and the street though plotted on the plan books of the survey department was not on any confirmed plan, yet the city had treated it as a public street, had repaved it in 1894 with Belgian blocks and reset the curbs, charging the plaintiff and defendants respectively as abutting owners for the curbing, and that plaintiff had paid for the curbing on his side but not that on defendants’ side nor for paving the cartway. He further found that the gateways complained of had existed as openings in the rear walls of defendants’ lots for forty years, and used from time to time, though for a part of that period not appearing ex[466]*466actly, the openings had been boarded up and disused. On these facts the judge, quoting Weiss v. So. Bethlehem Boro., 136 Pa. 294, found that Reese street was a public street, and the use of it by defendants was under their right as abutting owners. He therefore dismissed the bill. We have not been convinced that he was in error in his view of the facts, and on them the law is not open to question.

Decree affirmed with costs.

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

Related

McIntyre v. Board of County Commissioners
86 P.3d 402 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2004)
McCARGO v. Evanson
149 A.2d 588 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A. 23, 205 Pa. 464, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donohugh-v-lister-pa-1903.