The Borough of West Chester v. Apple et al.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Citation | 35 Pa. 284 |
| Parties | The Borough of West Chester versus Apple et al. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
W. Darlington, for the plaintiffs in error.
W. Butler and P. Frazer Smith, for the defendants in error.
If the original injury in this case was not legally chargeable against the borough, then it can have no right of action against the original wrongdoer, even though it was sued for it and gave him notice to defend, and an award was had against it, which it paid. One who is improperly sued for the wrong of another, must secure himself by a defence against that action, and not by subrogation to another.
Was the borough liable for the original injury? We think not. It is an imperious necessity that has forced upon our towns the substitution of public water-works, for the public and private pumps which we used to have, and that has made our streets the place where the public pipes are laid. These pipes thus become public watercourses for the supply of all private needs, and the duty of maintaining them, consistently with private rights, and with the common right of highway in the streets, falls upon the town authorities. But the private right of resorting to them for water makes some interference with the public travel inevitable, and so far the public right must yield. The excavations made for this purpose are for private benefit, done at private expense, and usually without any direct superintendence of the public; and only the persons who make them, or cause them to be made, are answerable for any injury they occasion to the right of travel. The borough had no hand in this excavation, and is not answerable for the carelessness with which it was done. The public fulfils its duty when it furnishes a complete highway, and it is not answerable for the improper modes in which individuals connect their property with it.
Alleys and doors, and steps and drains, are necessary to connect private property with public streets, and branch-pipes to connect with gas and water mains; and when the public leaves it to individuals to make such connections, they alone are responsible that the work shall be done without injury to any one. Streets are necessarily used for telegraphic lines, and signs and awnings and hitching-posts, and vaults and vault-gratings, and it is not the public, but the individuals who erect such things, that are answerable for the injuries arising...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazier v. Borough of Butler
...Allegheny, 91 Pa. 226. The facts in this case do not bring it within the law of Susquehanna Depot v. Simmons, 112 Pa. 384; Borough of West Chester v. Apple, 35 Pa. 284, or of the privileged cases cited by the appellant, but clearly exclude it from the application of the law therein laid dow......
-
Mills v. City of Philadelphia
... ... Silverthorn, 32 Pa. 65; ... Mallory v. Griffey, 85 Pa. 275; Borough of West ... Chester v. Apple, 35 Pa. 284; Ervin v. P. & ... R.R.R., 89 ... ...
-
| Philadelphia v. Smith
...v. Gilmore, 16 Pa. 463; King v. Thompson, 87 Pa. 365; Early v. Ashworth, 15 W. N. C. 142; Brown v. Weaver, 17 W. N. C. 230. In West Chester v. Apple, 35 Pa. 284, this court "Alleys and doors, and steps and drains, are necessary to connect private property with public streets, and branch-pip......
-
Fitzpatrick v. Burgess & Town Council of Borough of Darby
...any danger whatever was given. In these circumstances, showing a latent cause, and irrespective of our decision in borough of West Chester v. Apple, 35 Pa. 284, kindred cases, there was no evidence of negligence attributable to the borough, and the learned court below committed no error in ......