Court Opinion

ID: 9650707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:49:48.365563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:31.931186
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Robebts:
As the majority correctly holds, the Act of May 1, 1933, P. L. 103, §1105, 53 P.S. §66105 requires not only that a road be maintained by public funds for twenty-one years, but also that it be used for public travel for that length of time before the conclusive presumption arises that it is a township road. Assuming arguendo that there is sufficient evidence here to establish public maintenance* I caii find no evidence whatsoever in this record to support the chancellor’s finding, approved by a majority of this Court, of public user.
The road in question leads from a public highway to a private dwelling. It goes nowhere else, nor do any other roads intersect it. Terminal points such as these (from a public road to a private house) have long been considered the very essence of a private road. In the *561Matter of the Road from George Bliss’s to Sandy Lick Creek, 51 Pa. 94, 96 (1866); Killbuck Private Road, 77 Pa. 39, 43 (1874). It is true that the occupants of this dwelling house once operated a dairy farm on the premises, and at another time a riding academy. But this would no more operate to transform the road into a public thoroughfare than would the maintaining of a doctor’s office next to his home operate to so transform his driveway. Moreover, there is no evidence that these businesses were operated for twenty-one years, or that the use continued for that length of time. Cf. Schmeyer v. Christ, 74 Pa. D. & C. 605 (Lehigh County C.P. 1950).
The majority cites the testimony of William L. Beitler as evidence that the public used this road. However, Beitler merely testified that he used the road to reach the dairy farm to buy milk. So also, the record indicates that the individuals whom Prank L. Stewart, Jr. observed on the road were customers of the dairy farm and riding academy.
The only evidence offered by the appellees on the issue of public use consisted of certain maps purporting to show the property as a township road. We said in Hazleton v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 339 Pa. 565, 570, 16 A. 2d 23, 26 (1940) : “It is the law that the placing of a street on a city plan confers no right to the use of the land as a highway upon anyone.” Appellees would distinguish this case on the ground that there is a real road of some sort present here, whereas in Hazleton, the contested area was being used as a playground. However, the Hazleton Court cites, as authority for the statement quoted above, the case of Patterson v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 172 Pa. 554, 33 Atl. 575 (1896). In Patterson, the alleged public road was being used as a road, it having been graded by plaintiff’s grantees. Nevertheless, the Court there did not find persuasive the evidence that the road existed on *562maps as a public thoroughfare. In any case, I fail to see how the appellees could show actual public user by the mere introduction of maps.*
Although I recognize the well settled principle that a chancellor’s findings of fact have the effect of a jury verdict, and will not be disturbed if supported by adequate evidence, the present record reveals no such adequate evidence whatsoever. The appellants, in my opinion, are entitled to injunctive relief.
I dissent.
Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Eagen join in this dissenting opinion.

 The majority admits that the maps, by themselves, would be entitled to little weight. However, the opinion declares that these maps may be used to confirm the other evidence. I find no such other evidence.