easement privilege in Pennsylvania

1951S. 723, it is stated: “On abandonment of an easement, the right or interest which it involved vests in, or reverts to, the owner of the servient estate; but the owner of land adjoining a street does not acquire title to all the land embraced in the street by reason of an abandonment of the street by other adjoining owners.” In Lindeman et al. v. Lindsey, 69 Pa. 93, 100 , Justice Sharswood said: “If the instrument contain the grant of an easement or privilege to either party in the land or the water, against such a grant there is no statute of limitation without actual hostile and adverse posse

1912In Lindeman v. Lindsey, 69 Pa. 93 , Mr. Justice Shakswood said: “If the instrument contain the grant of an easement or privilege to either party in the land or the water, against such a grant there is no statute of limitation without actual hostile and adverse possession, and certainly no prescription or presumption from mere nonuser.

1976The next clause sets forth a warranty of title in favor of Gerber and “his heirs and assigns” and includes a reference to “all and singular the hereditaments and premises hereinabove described and granted or mentioned, and intended so to be.” The factors to be considered in determining whether an easement runs with the land are discussed at some length in Lindenmuth v. Safe Harbor Water Power Corp., 309 Pa. 58 , 163 A. 159 (1932), which includes an excerpt from Section 5, 9 Ruling Case Law 737-38: “In determining whether a particular easement created by grant is or is not appurtenant to land,

1976The next clause sets forth a warranty of title in favor of Gerber and “his heirs and assigns” and includes a reference to “all and singular the hereditaments and premises hereinabove described and granted or mentioned, and intended so to be.” The factors to be considered in determining whether an easement runs with the land are discussed at some length in Lindenmuth v. Safe Harbor Water Power Corp., 309 Pa. 58 , 163 A. 159 (1932), which includes an excerpt from Section 5, 9 Ruling Case Law 737-38: “In determining whether a particular easement created by grant is or is not appurtenant to land,

1971A reservation in a deed by a common grantor to grantees of adjoining lots as to their common use of a driveway between their parcels of land creates an easement or privilege running with the respective parcels of land.” A host of cases is cited in the footnote for the following statement in the case of Tosh v. Witts, 381 Pa. 255 , 258: “The driveway being thus sharply defined it would seem that plaintiffs had brought their case well within the established principle that, where an owner of land subjects part of it to an open, visible, permanent and continuous servitude or easement in favor of a

1951Nothing less than an absolute denial of the right, followed by an enjoyment inconsistent with its existence for a period of twenty-one years or more, can amount to an extinguishment of it.” And in Dulany et al. v. Bishoff et al., 165 Pa. Superior Ct. 207, 211 , the court declared: “It was incumbent upon, the plaintiffs to show not only non-user, but adverse possession by themselves and their predecessors in title for more than twenty-one years.” All of these results suggest that'third parties can only acquire rights by adverse possession and they can only defeat the rights of others by adverse

1951Nothing less than an absolute denial of the right, followed by an enjoyment inconsistent with its existence for a period of twenty-one years or more, can amount to an extinguishment of it.” And in Dulany et al. v. Bishoff et al., 165 Pa. Superior Ct. 207, 211 , the court declared: “It was incumbent upon, the plaintiffs to show not only non-user, but adverse possession by themselves and their predecessors in title for more than twenty-one years.” All of these results suggest that'third parties can only acquire rights by adverse possession and they can only defeat the rights of others by adverse

1919After the easement upon them was acquired, with the consent of the city, and the tracks were laid, whenever in the interest of public safety it became necessary to change the measure of the enjoyment of the easement or privilege, and the municipal authorities so declared, in the exercise of a reasonable discretion, the transit company was bound to submit to the change: Scranton Gas and Water Company v. Scranton City, 214 Pa. 586 .

1912Nothing less than an absolute denial of the right, followed by an enjoyment inconsistent with its existence for a period of twenty-one years or more, can amount to an extinguishment of it.” To the same effect are Erb v. Brown, 69 Pa. 216 ; McKee v. Perchment, 69 Pa. 342 , and Weaver v. Getz, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 418 .

1912Nothing less than an absolute denial of the right, followed by an enjoyment inconsistent with its existence for a period of twenty-one years or more, can amount to an extinguishment of it.” To the same effect are Erb v. Brown, 69 Pa. 216 ; McKee v. Perchment, 69 Pa. 342 , and Weaver v. Getz, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 418 .

1912Nothing less than an absolute denial of the right, followed by an enjoyment inconsistent with its existence for a period of twenty-one years or more, can amount to an extinguishment of it.” To the same effect are Erb v. Brown, 69 Pa. 216 ; McKee v. Perchment, 69 Pa. 342 , and Weaver v. Getz, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 418 .