Case Name: Private Road in Huntingdon Borough. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. R. Company's Appeal
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1892-05-02
Citations: 149 Pa. 133
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 344
Parties: Private Road in Huntingdon Borough. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. R. Company’s Appeal.
Judges: Before Paxson, C. J., Green, Williams, Mitchell and Hevdrick, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
Private Road in Huntingdon Borough. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. R. Company’s Appeal.
Boad law-*—Private road—Acts of June 13, 1836, and April 3,1851.
The general borough law of April 3, 1851, does not repeal the provisions of the Act of June 13, 1836, authorizing the court of quarter sessions to lay out private roads.
Argued April 22, 1892.
Appeal, No. 344, Jan. T., 1892, by the Huntington & Broad Top R. R. Co., from decree of Q. S. Huntington Co., dismissing exceptions and confirming report of viewers laying out a private road in the borough of Huntington.
Before Paxson, C. J., Green, Williams, Mitchell and Hevdrick, JJ.
On petition of George A. Port, setting forth that he was the owner of two certain plantations in the borough of Huntington and that he labored under great inconvenience for want of a private road, the court appointed viewers to lay out the same, with directions to procure releases and assess damages.
To the report of the jury laying out the road exceptions were filed by appellant, and dismissed by the court below in an opinion by Furst, P. J., in which he cited Selinsgrove Road, 9 C. C. Rep. 611.
JError assigned was, with one other, (1) assuming jurisdiction and entering decree confirming the report of the viewers.
Samuel T. Brown, Charles Gf. Brown with him, for appellant.
Gfeorge B. Orlady, for appellee.
May 2, 1892:

Opinion:
Pee Curiam,
We are of opinion that the general borough law of 1851 does not repeal that portion of the road law of 1836 authorizing the court of quarter sessions to lay out a private road. The contention of the appellant is, that while the act of 1836 is not repealed generally, yet it is no longer operative as regards boroughs, and that, since the passage of the act of 1851, whatever authority there is in the matter belongs to the borough authorities. We cannot sustain this position. We think the power to lay out a private road in a borough still remains in the court of quarter sessions, and, as there is nothing else in the case, the proceedings below must be affirmed. It is so ordered.