Commonwealth v. Shaffer
Citations
- 32 Pa. Super. 375
- 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 17
Syllabus
<p>Criminal law — Malicious mischief — Malice—Tearing down fences— Destroying windows and doors — Railroad—Condemnation of land — Acts of March 31, 1860, sec. 148, P. L. 382, and March 23, 1865, sec. 1, P. L. 42.</p> <p>In a prosecution for malicious mischief, malicious intent towards the owner, real or constructive, of the property injured, must always be proven.</p> <p>A person cannot be successfully charged with the commission of malicious mischief where he shows that the title to the property injured was in himself, or shows a belief, although mistaken, that the property was his own.</p> <p>Where a railroad company has regularly begun and completed condemnation proceedings by filing its bond according to law, and has procured the approval of the same by the court, employees of the company cannot be convicted of malicious mischief under the Acts of March 31, 1860, sec. 148, P. L. 382, and March 23,1865, sec. 1, P. L. 42, because they went upon the premises under the instructions of the company, and tore down fences, and windows and doors, to clear away obstructions so as to prepare the property for use for railroad purposes, the evidence showing that the entry was after reasonable notice and was not accompanied with any acts of wantonness or malice. In such a case the title to the property vested in the railroad company as soon as the bond was filed, and the former owner had no right to continue to occupy it, and no standing to prosecute the employees for their acts in removing the obstructions.</p> <p>Criminal law — Forcible entry — Railroads—Condemnation proceedings.</p> <p>Where a railroad company has condemned land and has perfected its title thereto by filing its bond and securing the confirmation of the bond by the court, its employees may enter upon the premises, and remove the permanent buildings thereon without liability to prosecution for forcible entry, provided they do not abuse their power.</p> <p>If the former owner's refusal to surrender possession
Judges: Beaver, Head, Morrison, Orlad, Portee, Rige
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. BollingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1962-03-21· cited 9×
- Commonwealth v. KincadeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-11-21· cited 3×
- Crider v. Pittsburg, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1913-10-13· cited 1×
- Scott v. Central Valley RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1907-04-15
- Com. ex rel. Smith v. Sheriff of Philadelphia CountyPhiladelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1926-02-25
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.