Stoops v. Kittanning Telephone Co.

Citations

• 242 Pa. 556
• 89 A. 686
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 690

Syllabus

<p>Beal property — Trespass to land — Telephone companies — Telephone poles and wires — Eminent domain — Recovery of damages— Act of June 2,1891, P. L. 170.</p> <p>1. Damages resulting to land owners by the cutting of trees, whether planted by the roadside or on enclosed or unenclosed land adjoining the same, if done in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, are clearly within the express provisions of the Act of June 2, 1891, P. L. 170. In such case an action of trespass will not lie to recover damages, unless there are such circumstances of negligence or wantonness as to make the case exceptional.</p> <p>2. Where a claim for damages to land is asserted under facts indicating that the original entry upon the land was lawful, the statutory proceeding which requires the appointment of viewers for the assessment of damages must be followed.</p> <p>3. In an action of trespass to recover damages for injuries to land caused by the erection and maintenance of a telephone line upon a public road adjacent to plaintiff’s land, it appeared that plaintiff had taken title -to the land alleged to be injured subsequent to the erection of the poles and wires complained of; and that so far as the facts were disclosed by the record the original entry by defendant company was lawful, and it did not appear whether an agreement had been made that no damages would be paid, or whether the damages were then actually settled. There was no assignment by the former owner to the plaintiff. The lower court entered a nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Held, no error.</p>