City of Pittsburg v. Epping-Carpenter Co.
City of Pittsburg v. Epping-Carpenter Co.
Opinion of the Court
The issue arising upon this record embracing as it does the question of the dedication of the grcfuud in dispute to public use so long ago as 1834, presents a subject of much interest historically as well as legally. The case was tried with great ability by the learned counsel on both sides, and the findings and opinion of the learned court below exhibit a patient and very painstaking investigation of all the facts and legal questions arising. After a careful study of the testimony and a comparison of it with the findings of fact by the court, we are constrained to say that we are not convinced by the very able argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was any error either in the findings of fact or the conclusions of law appearing on the record. We have no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the plaintiff’s bill. We affirm the decree upon the opinions of the court below including the findings of fact appearing therein.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The City of Pittsburg v. The Epping-Carpenter Company
- Cited By
- 38 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Wharves — Landings—Rivers—Dedication. Where a recorded plan of lots shows a space between the lots and a river, and lots have been sold according to the plan, and the public has used such space for over fifty years, and the legislature has conferred upon the borough in which the land is included the right to maintain and control the space as a wharf, and the borough has paved the space, there is a valid dedication of the wharf to public use. Where a wharf has been dedicated to public use, the municipality in which it is situated has no power, in the absence of legislative authority, to relinquish the rights of the public in the wharf. Where a wharf dedicated to public use has been used by the public for many years, and then obstructed and filled in by a railroad company and other parties, the city has the right to remove the obstruction. Equity — Jurisdiction—Public wharf. A city has a standing in equity to maintain a bill for an injunction to restrain persons from obstructing a wharf which has been dedicated to public use. Dedication of property to public use — Acceptance—Nuisance. Acceptance by the public of property dedicated to public use need not be immediate, but may be made when public necessity or convenience arises. As a corollary to this proposition it follows that it is not necessary that the public use the entire property dedicated. Any public use of part of the property, indicating a purpose to accept the gift, fixes the public right to the whole. When the public right has been acquired, it cannot be lost by nonuser or by municipal action not expressly authorized by law. Any occupation of the property inconsistent with the public right is a nuisance, and no length of time will legalize a public nuisance.