Case ID: pa_129/html/0525-01.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

C. A. HILL v. TOWNSHIP OF TIONESTA.
    APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP POREST COUNTY.
    Argued October 9, 1889 — Reversed at Bar.
    A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction in an action against a township for the negligence of its officers in failing to keep a public highway in repair, and the want of it may be shown as error in the Supreme Court, after the trial of an appeal in the Court of Common Pleas, where the question of jurisdiction was not raised.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Clark, Williams and Mitchell, JJ.
    No. 63 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 43 May Term 1888, C. P.
    On May 8, 1888, an appeal was filed in the Court of Common Pleas from the judgment of a justice of the peace in an action by C. A. Hill against Tionesta township. The paper books did not show by which party the appeal was taken. On August 6, 1888, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim for $200 damages, accruing to him in consequence of the neglect of the defendant township to keep a certain highway in repair. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
    At the trial on December 17, 1888, it was made to appear that on December 26, 1887, the plaintiff, by an employee, was driving a loaded wagon drawn by two horses upon a certain public highway which ran along a river bank, upon one side, and the track of a railroad company on the other. The horse on the side of the river bank fell into a deep rut in the traveled roadway, and when loosened from the other rolled over the bank and was injured.
    The question of jurisdiction was not raised, and the cause being submitted to the jury, upon the evidence, Brown, P. J., the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $95. Judgment having been entered on the verdict, the defendant took this appeal, specifying that the court erred, inter alia:
    8. In entertaining jurisdiction of the cause, and entering judgment for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. 0. Heydrich (with him Mr. T. F. Ritchey and Mr. Oarl I. Heydrich'), for the appellant.
    Counsel cited: Deihm v. Snell, 119 Pa. 316; Collins v. Collins, 37 Pa. 387; McKee v. Sanford, 25 Pa. 105; Stearly’s App., 3 Gr. 270; Ketland v. The Cassius, 2 Dall. 368.
    
      Mr. F. L. Davis, for the appellee, was not heard.
    Upon the point of concurrent jurisdiction, the brief filed cited: Section 1, act of July 7,1879, P. L. 194.
   Per Curiam:

On the argument at Bar,

Judgment reversed.