Kelly v. Donnelly

19 Pa. Super. 456, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 129
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 14, 1902
DocketAppeal, No. 48
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 Pa. Super. 456 (Kelly v. Donnelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kelly v. Donnelly, 19 Pa. Super. 456, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 129 (Pa. Ct. App. 1902).

Opinion

Opinion by

William W. Porter, J.,

The plaintiff and defendant own adjoining lots upon which houses were erected. By reason of the removal of one of the houses it became necessary to construct a portion of the fence between the properties. The trial judge finds, and the court on exceptions confirms the finding, “ That the fence is being built on the line, but in such a manner that the northerly face of the posts and rails will be on the mathematical division line between the lots in question, leaving the posts and rails entirely on Mrs. Kelly’s land; while the southerly face of the boards to be put on the fence will be on the division line, leaving the boards entirely on the defendant’s land.” The result is a projection greater on one side of the line than on the other. This method of constructing the fence was enjoined. The final decree of the court below requires that no fence shall be constructed by the defendant on the division line between the lots owned by the parties, which “ shall extend on to the land of the plaintiff a greater distance than on to the land of the defendant.” This was clearly right. The trial judge has given to the case an adjudication containing not only full findings, but an admirable discussion of the law. This the court below, [459]*459after due hearing on exceptions, has confirmed in an adequate opinion. Further discussion is, therefore, unnecessary. We are unanimous in entering the order.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Rich v. Stephens
11 P.2d 295 (Utah Supreme Court, 1932)
Rose v. Linderman
11 Am. Ann. Cas. 198 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Pa. Super. 456, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-donnelly-pasuperct-1902.