Salisbury Tp. v. Vito
| Decision Date | 29 December 1971 |
| Citation | 446 Pa. 200,285 A.2d 529 |
| Parties | TOWNSHIP OF SALISBURY v. John D. VITO and Ruth L. Vito, Appellants. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Herbert G. Litvin (Submitted), Easton, for appellants.
James G. Kellar (Submitted), Allentown, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and BARBIERI, JJ.
Appellants, John and Ruth Vito, are defendants in two equity actions 1 brought by the Township of Salisbury, a first class township, 2 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. The actions were consolidated for trial and the Chancellor granted the relief requested by the township in both cases. Because we conclude that the Chancellor's orders were overly broad and in at least one instance beyond his authority, we vacate the orders below.
In 1965 the Vitos purchased a parcel of land fronting Lehigh Avenue in Salisbury Township. Soon after purchase, the Vitos cleared two catch basins of the property of accumulated refuse and garbage and filled in one of them. The other catch basin, which had less than two feet of water in it when the cleanup operation began, has since become a pond with a depth of approximately ten feet. On both wet and dry days the pond overflows its banks and the excess water makes for generally muddy conditions in the summer and icy patches in the winter on Lehigh Avenue. In addition, the southern end of the pond and a fence surrounding the pond encroach some 9.3 feet upon the right of way of Lehigh Avenue. The township complains of these conditions and states that the overflow and encroachment prevent the improvement of Lehigh Avenue in this area.
The major thrust of appellants' argument on appeal is that the township failed to prove that the Vitos conduct was the legal cause of the pond's overflow. 3 Appellants contend that the installation of a 'lateral' under Lehigh Avenue and of a sewer pipe on the Vito property by third parties was accompanied by the deposit of great amounts of fill which prevented the normal drainage of the area. Mrs. Vito testified that there was no overflowing of the pond prior to the deposit of the fill. Although if this Court were trying the matter De novo we might reach a different conclusion, we believe there is support in the record, in the form of expert testimony, for the Chancellor's finding that the installation of the 'lateral' and the sewer pipe did not contribute Significantly to the overflow. 4
In addition, there is sufficient evidence in the record to show that the Vitos' own actions made for a large increase in the amount of water in the pond. They installed a pipe on their property to channel into the pond water from a stream flowing inside or very close to their eastern property line. Prior to the installation of the pipe most of the stream's water was caused to flow under Lehigh Avenue by means of a conduit unknown as a dole. After the installation of this pipe, much of the stream's water ran into the pond rather than through the dole. The Vitos also increased the capacity of the pond by clearing the catch basin and by depositing fill on top of which a driveway was constructed around its perimeter. Thus, it is clear that the Vitos were, at least, responsible for an increased capacity of the pond and an increased flow of water into the pond, and the Chancellor was justified in finding that although there may be other factors contributing to the overflowing, the appellants' actions were a significant cause of the overflowing onto Lehigh Avenue. We know of no principle of law which would require the appellants to be the single cause of a prohibited result before they could be held for their contribution to that result.
The Chancellor, having reached the conclusion that appellants were responsible for the conditions complained of, granted the township equitable relief. At No. 9, the appellants were enjoined perpetually from discharging water from their land onto a public road, from diverting water into the pond located on their property and from interfering with the flow of a stream located on or near their property. At No. 22, the Chancellor ordered the Vitos to remove the fence and pond obstructing the Lehigh Avenue right-of-way and further to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alburger v. Philadelphia Elec. Co.
...of Waters May Obtain Relief by Statute or by the Tort Concept of Reasonable Use, 60 N.D.L.Rev. 741 (1984). In Salisbury Township v. Vito, 446 Pa. 200, 285 A.2d 529 (1971), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the granting of an injunction against a property owner who channeled water from a......
-
Moore v. Mobil Oil Co.
...with the equities in the case when, as here, the complainant[s] include[ ] a prayer for general relief." Salisbury Township v. Vito, 446 Pa. 200, 204, 285 A.2d 529, 531 (1971). Where "[e]quity had proper jurisdiction in th[e] matter [it] may, under the prayer for general relief, validly fra......
-
Easton Theatres, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Land and Mortg. Co., Inc.
...breach are not contrary. See Sigal v. Manufacturer's Light and Heat Co., 450 Pa. 228, 299 A.2d 646 (1973); Township of Salisbury v. Vito, 446 Pa. 200, 285 A.2d 529 (1971); Dombroski v. City of Philadelphia, 431 Pa. 199, 245 A.2d 238 (1968). 10 Those cases hold that a Chancellor has the powe......
-
Easton Theatres, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Land and Mortg. Co., Inc.
... ... See Sigal v ... Manufacturer's Light and Heat Co., 450 Pa. 228, 299 ... A.2d 646 (1973); Township of Salisbury v. Vito, 446 ... Pa. 200, 285 A.2d 529 (1971); Dombroski v. City of ... Philadelphia, ... [401 A.2d 1343] ... 431 Pa. 199, 245 A.2d 238 ... ...