McNanamy v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
173 A. 491, 114 Pa. Super. 282, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 261 (1934)
Rule of Law:
A court sitting in equity has broad discretion to impose reasonable conditions on a mandatory injunction compelling the removal of an unintentional encroachment, balancing the plaintiff's right to property with the equitable principle of avoiding undue hardship to the defendant.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs and defendant are owners of adjoining lots of ground.
- The defendant purchased its lot on June 1, 1929.
- Shortly after purchasing the lot, the defendant constructed a two-story brick and cement block building.
- The foundation of the defendant's building extends from zero to four and three-quarter inches across the division line onto the plaintiffs’ land.
- The main portion of the defendant's wall, constructed of cement blocks, protrudes from a half inch to about one and one-half inches over the division line.
- The windows in the defendant's wall, when opened, extend over plaintiffs’ land.
- The coping on top of the defendant's wall projects approximately two inches beyond the division line.
- The trial court found that the defendant's occupation of the plaintiffs’ property, though without right, was not intentional.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sought equitable relief in the nature of a mandatory injunction in the trial court (the court below) to compel the defendant to remove portions of a building encroaching on their land.
- On October 26, 1931, the trial court issued a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to remove the encroaching portions and restore possession within ninety days.
- The trial court, upon considering exceptions to its initial decree, affirmed that the defendant's occupation was without right but not intentional.
- The trial court issued a second decree on June 6, 1932, directing the defendant to furnish a $2,500 bond and allowing the defendant a reasonable time to remove the wall by going onto the plaintiffs’ land for that purpose.
- Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, and further testimony was taken.
- The trial court filed a third decree, modifying the second decree by adding the condition that the defendant pay the plaintiffs the sum of seven dollars and fifty cents for each working day during the actual removal of the obstruction.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed this third decree to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, arguing the conditions were outside the scope of equitable jurisdiction or inequitable.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court sitting in equity exceed its jurisdiction or act inequitably by imposing conditions, such as allowing the encroaching party access to the plaintiff's land for removal and requiring daily compensation during the removal period, on a mandatory injunction compelling the removal of an unintentional encroachment?
Opinions:
Majority - Baldrige, J.
No, a court sitting in equity does not exceed its jurisdiction or act inequitably by imposing such conditions. The court recognized the plaintiffs’ undisputed right to compel the defendant to cease its intrusion and ordered the removal of the encroachment. However, while the expense or inconvenience to the defendant in correcting the legal injury may not be solely controlling, these elements are properly considered by an equity court. The court affirmed that equity's policy is to avoid imposing undue hardship, especially when the wrong is the result of innocent actions. Citing Dodson v. Brown, the court noted precedents where equitable conditions, such as extended time for removal, were deemed appropriate. The court reasoned that an equitable court may invoke principles to reduce damages and impose reasonable regulations and conditions to enforce the plaintiff's right, thereby minimizing the defendant's expenses where reasonable and legal. The imposed conditions, including allowing the defendant access to the plaintiffs' land for removal (which avoids forcing the defendant to tear down a hundred-foot wall from their own side) and requiring daily compensation, were viewed as a reasonable and wise exercise of discretion by the lower court to balance the equities and prevent serious destruction of property while still securing the plaintiffs’ rights.
Analysis:
This case significantly affirms the broad discretionary power of equity courts to tailor remedies in property disputes, particularly those involving unintentional encroachments. It establishes that while a property owner's right to exclusive possession is fundamental, equity may temper strict enforcement with conditions designed to prevent disproportionate hardship or economic waste, especially when the encroachment was innocent. This ruling provides a precedent for courts to consider the practicalities and costs of compliance, allowing for creative solutions that achieve justice without imposing extreme burdens, thereby influencing future decisions involving injunctive relief in property law.
