Pile v. Pedrick
167 Pa. 296, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 897, 31 A. 646 (1895)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is entitled to an injunction for the removal of a trespassing structure on their property, even if the encroachment is minimal, unintentional, and the cost of removal is substantial and disproportionate to the harm.
Facts:
- Pedrick began constructing a factory on a property adjacent to Pile's land.
- Intending to build entirely on their own property, Pedrick hired a district surveyor to locate and mark the property line.
- Pedrick constructed the factory's foundation wall according to the surveyor's marking.
- Subsequent surveys revealed that the surveyor had erred, and the foundation stones encroached one and three-eighths inches onto Pile's land below the surface.
- The visible wall built upon the foundation was entirely on Pedrick's land.
- Pedrick offered to make the wall a party wall for Pile's free use, which Pile declined.
- Pedrick then asked for permission to enter Pile's property to chip off the encroaching part of the foundation, offering to pay for any inconvenience, but Pile refused access.
Procedural Posture:
- Pile filed a bill in equity in a court of first instance against Pedrick, seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of the encroaching foundation wall.
- The trial court issued a decree ordering Pedrick to remove the encroachment but also ordered the parties to divide the costs of the litigation.
- Pile, the plaintiff, appealed the portion of the decree regarding the division of costs to the state's highest court.
- Pedrick, the defendant, filed a separate appeal to the same court, challenging the part of the decree that ordered the removal of the wall.
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 minor, unintentional encroachment of a building's foundation onto a neighbor's property entitle the landowner to an injunction forcing its removal, regardless of the hardship imposed on the encroaching party?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Williams
Yes. A landowner has an absolute right to their property, and an unconsented physical occupation by a neighbor must be removed. The court held that defendants have no right, at law or in equity, to occupy land that does not belong to them. The fact that the trespass was unintentional, resulting from a surveyor's mistake, is irrelevant to the plaintiff's right to have their property restored to them. Because Pile refused to allow Pedrick to enter their land to perform the minor fix of chipping off the stones, the only available remedy, however harsh, is for Pedrick to remove the entire wall from their side to correct the foundation. Regarding costs, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to divide them, stating that costs in equity are discretionary and can be allocated based on the conduct of the parties; here, the hardship to the defendant and the plaintiff's refusal to cooperate justified the division.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies a strict, formalist application of property rights, often referred to as a 'property rule' approach. It establishes that a landowner's right to be free from physical invasion is absolute, and a court of equity will issue an injunction to protect that right without balancing the hardships of the parties. This decision prioritizes the sanctity of property boundaries over equitable considerations of cost or intent, setting a strong precedent that even a de minimis encroachment can lead to a costly mandatory injunction. It signals to builders and landowners the severe consequences of even minor and unintentional boundary errors.
Unlock the full brief for Pile v. Pedrick