Loudenslager v. Mosteller

• Decision Date: 02 July 1973
• Citation: 307 A.2d 286,453 Pa. 115
• Parties: Joy E. LOUDENSLAGER et al., Appellees, v. William Landis MOSTELLER, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 286

307 A.2d 286

453 Pa. 115

Joy E. LOUDENSLAGER et al., Appellees, v. William Landis MOSTELLER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 2, 1973.

[453 Pa. 116] Sidney A. Simon, Williamsport, for appellant.

Thomas C. Raup, Fisher, Rice & Raup, Williamsport, for appellees.

Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

EAGEN, Justice.

The appellee-plaintiffs and the appellant-defendant are owners of adjoining lands in a rural section of Lycoming County. This action in equity was instituted to enjoin the appellant from interfering with the appellees' use of a roadway extending from a public highway over land owned by the appellant to land owned by the appellees. After an evidentiary hearing the chancellor entered a decree nisi granting the injunction and ruled the appellees enjoyed an easement over the roadway by prescription. This ruling was premised upon a finding in his adjudication that the appellees and their predecessors in title had used the roadway openly, continuously, notoriously and adversely for more than twenty-one years. Subsequently, the court en banc dismissed exceptions to the decree nisi, affirmed the findings and conclusions of the chancellor and made the decree final. The appellant filed this appeal.

It is first argued that use of the roadway was initially permissive and any subsequent adverse use did not continue for twenty-one years, the period required to establish an easement by prescription. However, the chancellor found the roadway was used adversely for more than twenty-one years and since there is adequate evidence in the record to support this finding, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Cf. Sterrett v. Sterrett, 401 Pa. 583, 166 A.2d 1 (1960). Moreover, as this Court stated many years ago in Garrett v. Jackson, 20 Pa. 331, 335--336 (1853):

'(W)here one uses an easement whenever he sees fit, without asking leave, and without objection, it is adverse, and an uninterrupted adverse enjoyment for twenty-one years is a title which cannot be afterwards disputed. Such enjoyment, without evidence to explain how it began, is presumed to have been in pursuance of a full and unqualified grant. The owner of the land has the burden of proving that the use of the easement was under some license, indulgence, or special contract inconsistent with a claim of right by the other party.'

See also Pierce v. Cloud, 42 Pa. 102 (1862); Mather-Klock, Inc. v. Plymire, 349 Pa. 194, 36 A.2d 802 (1944); Wampler v. Shenk, 404 Pa. 395, 172 A.2d 313 (1961); Stiegelman v. Pennsylvania Yacht Club, Inc., 432 Pa. 111, 246 A.2d 116 (1968).

Secondly, appellant asserts that originally the 'right of way' was a footpath and that it was changed to a vehicular 'right of way' only recently and, in any event, less than twenty-one years ago. Consequently, there can be no prescriptive right to use the roadway for vehicular traffic. But, the chancellor...