Lower Makefield Road

Decided March 11, 1872

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1872-03-11

<p>1. Viewers laid out a road and vacated part of another, which was between the termini of the road laid out, and returned a plot both of the road laid out and the parts vacated ; reviewers refused to lay out, but vacated the same part and returned a plot; re-reviewers laid out the road and also vacated the same parts but returned no plot; exceptions were filed in the sessions, which were dismissed, but the court below set the report aside because no plot was returned: Held to be correct: there not having been an entire vacation.</p> <p>2. The want of a plot was not excepted to below. It was not error to set the report aside on this defect, although not excepted to.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-03-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1996

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Judgment was entered

Per Curiam.

¶2We think the court did right in noticing the defects in the report of the re-reviewers, for which it set the report aside. How a draft could be dispensed with where there was a report of a road between the termini, in which there were sixteen or seventeen courses and distances reported, I am not able to see. *177It is true, if an entire vacation had been reported, a draft would then have been unnecessary, for the cogent reason given in the argument for the exceptants, but that was not the case. The report, if it had been confirmed, would have required the action of the supervisors to open the road and keep it in repair. For this reason a draft was indispensable. The Acts of 1886 and of 1867 both require it.

¶3It was not error in the judge to take notice of this omission. No doubt if counsel had desired argument on this point it would have been granted, but no request to that effect appears.

¶4Proceedings affirmed at costs of exceptants.