Skip to main content
· 4/17/1916

Pottsville v. Jones

Citations

  • 63 Pa. Super. 180
  • 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 131

Syllabus

<p>Road law — Paving—Original paving — Conversion of road info street — Intention—Evidence—Province of court and jury — Municipalities.</p> <p>The first paving which exempts an abutting property owner from liability for any subsequent improvement is one that is put down originally, or adopted or acquiesced in subsequently, by the municipal authorities for the purpose and with the intent of changing an ordinary road into a street. This intention may be shown by an original ordinance directing the construction, or by acquiescence or adoption. The sufficiency of the evidence showing intention is always for the court, but where the evidence is sufficient to warrant the finding of intention, it is for the jury, generally, to find it as a fact.</p> <p>Such acts of the municipality which recognize the highway as ,a highway and provide for the safety, convenience, comfort and security of the citizens living along or using it, are not acts which recognize or show an intention of adopting a system of construe' tion as being equivalent to a permanent improvement, such as would relieve an abutting property owner from liability for municipal improvements.</p> <p>The municipality has the exclusive right to determine, in the public interest when, how, and with what material a conversion from an ordin'ary road into a street shall take place. While no particular material is necessary to constitute such pavement, it may be made of anything which will produce a hard, firm, smooth surface for traveling. Macadamizing may be regarded as a first paving, if it was the intention of the municipal authorities to so use it.</p> <p>If the construction consists in tearing up the street and placing large stones on end, rolling them with a steamroller, placing on this a layer of trap rock and screenings, and watering and rolling this to make a firm, hard surface, it will constitute a first paving, if the municipal authorities so intend.</p> <p>It is not conclusive against the intention that the co

Judges: Bice, Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orrady, Porter, Trexrer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.