Case Name: Shamokin Borough, Appellant, v. Yost et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1920-06-26
Citations: 268 Pa. 258
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 242
Parties: Shamokin Borough, Appellant, v. Yost et al.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 268
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Shamokin Borough, Appellant, v. Yost et al.
Boroughs — Dedication, of land — Acceptance of dedication — Dvidence — V erdict — Review.
1. The appellate court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict against a borough, on an issue between the borough and persons claiming ownership of a strip of land in the borough where the sole question submitted to the jury was whether the land in suit had been dedicated to the borough, and dedication had been accepted by the borough, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.
Argued May 11, 1920.
Appeal, No. 242, Jan. T., 1920, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1918, No. 138, on verdict for defendants on a feigned issue in case of Shamokin Borough and John Drumheiser, Chief Burgess, v. Sarah L. Yost et al.
Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Feigned issue in case certified from the equity side of the court to determine the ownership of a triangular strip of land in the Borough of Shamokin, claimed by the borough to have been dedicated to it by the defendants in the feigned issue. Before Moser, J.
The sole issue submitted to the jury was the question of dedication of the land to the borough, and acceptance of such dedication by the borough. The evidence was conflicting.
June 26, 1920:
Verdict and judgment for defendants in the feigned issue. The borough appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of motion for judgment n. o. v., quoting record.
•/. A. Welsh, with him 11. •/, (Hiele, for appellants.
Charles G. Lark, with him Benjamin S. Harris, for appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The right of the Borough of Shamokin to recover in this issue depended upon proof of title acquired by dedication of the land in dispute and the borough's acceptance of the dedication. The sole question submitted to the jury was as to such acquisition of title by the borough, and the finding was that it did not have title. We have discovered nothing in the twenty-five assignments of error calling for a submission of the same question, to another jury.
Judgment affirmed.