Pile v. Pedrick

SC of PA- 1895

Facts

• 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.

Procedural History

• Court below held that the wall in controversy was not a party wall, so D had to remove it.
• Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

• Does a person have the right to trespass on another's land in any circumstances?

Holding/Rule

• A person does not have the right to trespass on another's land in any circumstances.

Reasoning

• 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.

Dissent

•   None.

Notes

•   None.