Pile v. Pedrick
SC of PA- 1895
- Ds built a wall that projected onto the P's land by 1 3/8 inches.
- D offered to make the wall a party wall, but the offer was declined.
- P said D had to remove the parts of the wall that crossed the property line, but wouldn't let D on his property so that he could do so.
- Court below held that the wall in controversy was not a party wall, so D had to remove it.
- Supreme Court affirmed.
- Does a person have the right to trespass on another's land in any circumstances?
- A person does not have the right to trespass on another's land in any circumstances.
- Trespass was then to be remedied in one of two ways:
- It could be treated as a permanent trespass, and P could be compensated for damages; OR
- The Ds could be compelled to remove the offending ends of the stones to the other side of the property line.
- D said that P had to remove the parts of the wall that crossed the property line. However, then D refused to let P come onto his property to remove the stones.
- Therefore, P must take down the entire wall and rebuild it on their side.
- The Ds have no right, at law or in equity, to occupy land that does not belong to them.