Brink v. Borough of Dunmore

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 16, 1896

Brink v. Borough of Dunmore, 174 Pa. 395 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 598; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 895

Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Stbrrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Our consideration of this record has not convinced us that either of the defendants’ twenty-two specifications of error ‘ should be sustained. In view of the testimony, and the learned trial judge’s instructions to the jury, their verdict necessarily imphes the finding of facts which render the borough, as well as the other defendants, hable for the trespass that was clearly and conclusively shown to have been committed. We find no substantial error, in the course of the trial, or in the submission of the case to the jury; nor, do we think there is anything in either of the questions involved that requires discussion. We are all of opinion that the judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Jennie E. Brink v. The Borough of Dunmore, (Appellant,) Edward J. Lynett, Michael A. Taylor, Benjamin F. Lewis, Frank McDonald, Michael Dolphin, Michael Cunion and William Loftus
Cited By: 7 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Boroughs — Taking of private property — Trespass. Where a .borough takes private property in an irregular manner and not precisely according to law, and does work upon it which is within the general scope of the authority of the borough, it is liable in an action of trespass for the injury committed. A borough council adopted a resolution directing that all property owners on a certain street be given notice to lay sidewalks in front of their properties. Subsequently the secretary was directed by resolution to advertise for bids for the laying of sidewalks on the street. The borough council had a committee of three on streets and bridges, which committee was created by ordinance and members appointed by resolution. The burgess, the street commissioner and the three members of the committee on streets and bridges directed workmen to enter upon plaintiff’s property, tear down and move back a fence, and construct a sidewalk. No application was made by petition to the court of quarter sessions for the appointment of viewers, and no ordinance was passed relating to the taking of the land. Held, that the borough was liable in an action of tresnass for the injury done to plaintiff.