Henderson v. Young

Citations

• 260 Pa. 334
• 103 A. 719
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 516

Syllabus

<p>Beal property — Easements—Conveyance of land abutting on street plotted but not opened — Subsequent vacation — Equity—Injunction — Refusal.</p> <p>1. A deed describing property as bounded by a street plotted on a city plan but not opened does not convey to the grantee an easement over the bed of the proposed street or entitle him to a right of passage where the street is never opened and is subsequently vacated by the city.</p> <p>2. Where in the trial of a proceeding in equity to restrain interference with plaintiff’s alleged easement over a street bounding his property it appeared that the deed conveying the property in question to plaintiff’s, predecessor in title described the premises as extending to the side of a named street which at the time was plotted on the city plan but not opened and that other property of said grantor abutting on and including the bed of the street had passed into the hands of the various defendants who were using the street for lawns, trees, shrubbery, fences and buildings, and where it appeared that the street had been formally vacated and stricken from the city plan, and there was no evidence that ¡said grantor had ever plotted the said street on a plan made by him or adopted it as part of a development of an abutting tract, but merely used the street plotted by the city as a boundary in the conveyance to the plaintiff’s predecessor in title, a bill to restrain interference with plaintiff’s alleged easement over the street was properly dismissed.</p> <p>Tesson' v. Porter Co., 238 Pa. 504; Bell v. Steel Co., 243 Pa. 83; and Shetter v. Welzel, 242 Pa. 355, applied and explained.</p>