O'Donnell v. Porter Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 6, 1913

O'Donnell v. Porter Co., 238 Pa. 495 (Pa. 1913)

86 A. 281; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 998

Brown, Elkin, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

On the facts found by the court below its legal conclusions inevitably followed. The latter cannot be overruled unless some of the former are disturbed; but no fact was improperly found, and, on the legal conclusion of the learned chancellor, the decree must be affirmed. O’Donnell v. Pittsburgh, 234 Pa. 401, decided after the opinion in this case was filed below, is conclusive as to the right of the appellee to the injunction awarded.

Appeal dismissed and decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Reference

Full Case Name: O'Donnell v. Porter Company
Cited By: 8 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Beal properly — Roads and, highways — Streets—Vacation—Easements — Plan of lots. Plaintiff was the owner of a lot in the City of Pittsburgh, which had originally been one of a plan of lots laid out by the predecessor in title of plaintiff and defendants. Defendants were the owners of a number of lots originally laid out by the same plan. The plan had not been recorded at the time plaintiff’s or defendants’ predecessors had obtained title. By ordinance of the City of Pittsburgh, a street on said plan was vacated between certain points, defendants being the owners of lots abutting on the vacated portion. Defendants obstructed the street with various materials with the intention of permanently closing the same by building thereon. Plaintiff filed a bill to prevent the obstruction of the street. Held, the laying out of the original plan of lots by the owner of the property was a dedication of the streets and alleys to public use, and each purchaser of a lot in the plan obtained an easement over the same, which could not be destroyed by the act of the municipality in vacating any of the streets. The fact that the plaintiff obtained title before the plan of lots had been acknowledged by the owner who had laid the same out was held not material where defendants had acquired lots conveyed in the same way, and their predecessors had notice through their chain of title of the existence of the plan.