Court Opinion

ID: 6242833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 20:49:09.588572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:15.145070
License: Public Domain

Pee Cueiam,
This case was greatly simplified by what transpired in the court below at the conclusion of the trial. The plaintiff conceded the defendant’s right of way over his land, and the defendant conceded in effect that the gate erected by the plaintiff across the right of way for the protection of his fields was not an unreasonable obstruction to, or interference with, the right of passage. This left no question undisposed of except that of the legal right of the owner of the land to protect his fields by such a gate or other structure as should not unreasonably interfere with the use of the way. The easement was only for passage. The land remained the property of the plaintiff and he had a right to use it for any purpose that did not interfere with the easement. To do this it might be necessary under some circumstances to inclose the way with the field over which it passes, and if this is done with a reasonable regard to the convenience of the owner of the easement it affords him no just ground of complaint. The tendency of our legislation is in this direction, and such is also the fair effect of Connery v. Brooke, 73 Pa. 80.
The learned judge reached a correct conclusion and the judgment is affirmed.