From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wesolowski v. J. Hancock M. L. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 26, 1932
308 Pa. 123 (Pa. 1932)

Summary

In Robin v. Brown, 1932, 308 Pa. 123, 162 A. 161, 162, the court said: "In the absence of an open and notorious actual use of land claimed by adverse possession, the claimant must show that it was so substantially and visibly fenced in and the fence was so continuously and substantially maintained * * * as to amount to an assertion * * * of his exclusive private ownership of that area of the earth's surface.

Summary of this case from Ringstad v. Grannis

Opinion

May 26, 1932.

(Appeal, No. 137, Jan. T., 1932.)


The judgment of the court below in the above entitled case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed to the case similarly entitled and indexed to No. 138, January Term, 1932.


Summaries of

Wesolowski v. J. Hancock M. L. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 26, 1932
308 Pa. 123 (Pa. 1932)

In Robin v. Brown, 1932, 308 Pa. 123, 162 A. 161, 162, the court said: "In the absence of an open and notorious actual use of land claimed by adverse possession, the claimant must show that it was so substantially and visibly fenced in and the fence was so continuously and substantially maintained * * * as to amount to an assertion * * * of his exclusive private ownership of that area of the earth's surface.

Summary of this case from Ringstad v. Grannis
Case details for

Wesolowski v. J. Hancock M. L. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Wesolowski et al. v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: May 26, 1932

Citations

308 Pa. 123 (Pa. 1932)
162 A. 161

Citing Cases

Sutton v. Miller

Appellants concede, therefore, the "substantiality" of the Sutton fence prior to removal. See Dimura v.…

Ringstad v. Grannis

In Johnston v. City of Albuquerque, 1903, 12 N.M. 20, 72 P. 9, it was held that a fence relied upon to…