DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 973 C.D. 1974
Citation Numbers: 19 Pa. Commw. 319
Judges: Crumlish, Mencer, Rogers
Filed Date: 5/28/1975
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/24/2022
Opinion by
Joseph Petraitis and Wanda T. Petraitis (appellants) are the owners of a tract of land in Tinicum Township, Bucks County, which abuts both sides of Legislative Route 326 (River Road) and Legislative Route 09099 (Dark Hollow Road). River Road and Dark Hollow Road intersect in a T intersection, and the appellants have a home which fronts on the northwest corner of this intersection.
The present litigation had its origin on April 21, 1972, when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (Commonwealth), and Tinicum Township (Township)
After a final hearing had been held on October 30, 1973, the chancellor, on December 7, 1973, issued an adjudication and decree nisi which enjoined the appellants from obstructing and encroaching upon the legal right-of-way of River Road and the paving of River Road and Dark Hollow Road at and near their intersection as it existed on March 16, 1972 and directed appellants to remove from the legal right-of-way of River Road any rocks, boulders, and other objects thereon within a distance of 14 feet of the center line of the paved surface of River Road as depicted in Exhibit P-1 of the record.
Appellants filed exceptions to the decree nisi, but the court en banc overruled the exceptions and adopted the
Our narrow scope of review in this type of case was set forth in Groff v. Borough of Sellersville, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 315, 317, 314 A.2d 328, 330 (1974), in which we stated:
“Our scope of review in equity matters is limited. The findings of fact of the chancellor will be reversed only where there has been manifest or clear error or a clear abuse of discretion. The chancellor’s decision will stand if there exists sufficient evidence to justify the findings and logically sound, reasonable inferences and conclusions derived therefrom. Even a preponderance of testimony against the findings will be insufficient if there is testimony which, if believed, will warrant them.”
Unhappily for appellants, the exercise of our review compels our affirmance of the lower court.
Our careful reading of the record and briefs in this case reveals that appellants, who unfortunately were unrepresented by counsel, either misunderstood or ignored the issues involved in this litigation. These issues, stated simply, were (1) the ascertainment of the legal right-of-way of River Road, including the location of its center line, and (2) whether or not appellants encroached upon this right-of-way by placing rocks, boulders, and other objects thereon.
The lower court’s resolution of these issues against appellants was adequately supported by the testimony of one of the appellants, Joseph Petraitis. Mr. Petraitis admitted causing the rock pile in question and also admitted that the rock pile was in the legal right-of-way of River Road. The following colloquy between Judge Satterthwaite and Mr. Petraitis demonstrates how these factual questions were decided by appellants’ own admissions: “Q. All right. Now, is there anything else you want to tell me about the right-of-way with respect to
Affirmed.
. In addition to these two plaintiffs, Palisades School District was joined as a party plaintiff by order under date of April 27, 1972.