Berg v. Butler Savings & Trust Co.

Citations

• 233 Pa. 469
• 82 A. 683
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 855

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Findings of fact — Decree—Easements—Adverse possession.</p> <p>1. In a proceeding in equity to restrain the obstruction of an alleyway in which plaintiffs claimed an easement and to recover damages for alleged injuries to their property, a decree dismissing the bill will not be reversed where there is support for the court’s findings and conclusions that the defendant and his predecessors in title had used and occupied the narrow strip in controversy so as to obtain title thereto by adverse possession, except that during part of the statutory time the water conductors on the plaintiffs’ building had overhung the alley eight or nine inches; that under the facts the use of the land as an easement by the plaintiffs was presumed to have been permissive; that the proposed construction would not interfere with the overhanging portions of plaintiffs’ building; and that since the defendant before excavating below the foundations of the plaintiffs' building had notified the latter to protect the same, which they had undertaken to do; and since no negligence had been proved against the defendant, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover damages.</p> <p>Rules — Supreme Court — Specifications of error.</p> <p>2. A specification of error which goes to the decree and complains of the refusal of an injunction, the failure to assess damages and the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ exceptions offends against Supreme Court rule 26, to the effect that each error relied upon must be specified by itself and that no specifications shall embrace more than one point, refer to more than one bill of exceptions or raise more than one distinct question.</p>