Kier v. Boyd

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kier v. Boyd

60 Pa. 33

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 4, 1869

DocketNo. 173

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 Pa. 33 (Kier v. Boyd) 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

Kier v. Boyd, 60 Pa. 33 (Pa. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion was delivered

Per Curiam.

— The decree below was undoubtedly correct. The appellants had no right to encroach on the property of the appellees under the pretext of a necessity for widening their roadbed : Lance’s Appeal, 5 P. F. Smith 16. If they cannot lay down a double track on ground appropriated by the law for one, they must be content with one, or proceed according to law to acquire ground for a second. Their necessities will not justify them in trespassing.

Decree affirmed at the cost of the appellants.

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

The opinion was delivered

Per Curiam.

— The decree below was undoubtedly correct. The appellants had no right to encroach on the property of the appellees under the pretext of a necessity for widening their roadbed : Lance’s Appeal, 5 P. F. Smith 16. If they cannot lay down a double track on ground appropriated by the law for one, they must be content with one, or proceed according to law to acquire ground for a second. Their necessities will not justify them in trespassing.

Decree affirmed at the cost of the appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Pa. 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kier-v-boyd-pa-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack