Commonwealth, ex rel. Hensel v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Warren

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 30, 1895

Commonwealth, ex rel. Hensel v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Warren, 169 Pa. 24 (Pa. 1895)

32 A. 121; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1064

Fell, Green, McCollum, Sterrbett, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Sterrbett,

All that can be profitably said, in relation to the facts as well as the questions of law involved in this case, will be found in the able and exhaustive opinion of the learned president of the court below. We are fully satisfied as to the correctness of the conclusions, both of law and fact, so far, at least, as they are involved in the decree. We therefore affirm the decree on his opinion and dismiss the appeal at appellant’s costs.

Dissenting Opinion

Williams, J.

I dissent from the judgment in this case. Under the statutes cited the borough of Warren has proprietary as well as municipal control of the lot in controversy and can make a title to the proposed purchaser.

Reference

Full Case Name: Commonwealth, ex rel. W. U. Hensel, Attorney General v. The Young Men's Christian Association of Warren, Pa.
Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Deeds — Description—Boundaries. The representation of a tract of land in a plot as abutting upon another tract, or upon a stream or other natural object is the same as saying in words that it extends to the other tracts or stream as its boundary. Under the act of April 18,1795, the site of the present borough of Warren was surveyed into lots, streets and alleys by commissioners appointed by the commonwealth, and the lots were sold by number as laid down on the plot returned by the commissioners. The names and widths of the streets were marked upon the draft; and the southern boundary of Water street was shown on it by the irregular margin of the river. It was marked “Water Street, one hundred feet wide.” The plot showed the section of the street in dispute as bordering on the river on the south. Another section of the street was shown on the plot as not bordering on the river, and land between it and the river was plotted, and streets entering the street at this section were extended across to the river, while streets entering it on the section in dispute were not so extended. Held,, that the southern boundary was the river, and that the width of the street was not limited to one hundred feet. • Borough of Warren — Act of March 6, 1845. The act of March 6, 1845, authorizing the burgess and town council of Warren borough to “ lay out into lots any ground not belonging to individuals along the banks of the Allegheny river and Conewango creek in the bounds of said borough, and the same to sell and convey .... provided that nothing herein contained shall interfere with the use of said river and creek as public highways,” did not authorize the borough authorities to sell any land along the margin of the river and creek within the limits of Water street as shown by the original plot of the commit sinners. Bivers and streams — Waters—Hiparían owners. While a riparian owner has the right to use the land between high and low watermark, he has no right to erect permanent structures on the land which will interfere with the right of the public to moor over any part of the land at high water; and an injunction will issue at the instance of the commonwealth to restrain such erection.