Case ID: sadler_1/html/0337-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Fisher, Plff. in Err., v. Pennsylvania Company.
    Eence held not a monument or mark defining a boundary.
    (Decided January 4, 1886.)
    Error to the Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny County to review a judgment for defendant in an action for trespass for removing a fence.
    Affirmed.
    
      Barton & Sons for plaintiff in error.
    
      Hampton & Dalzell for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam:

We discover no error in this record. The land on which the fence stood was properly appropriated by the railroad company, according to law. The fence was not a continuous one to mark any designated boundary. It was merely disconnected portions to prevent cattle from trespassing on the track. It was not in any sense a consentable line to define the boundary between the company and the adjoining owner.

Judgment affirmed.