Pile v. Pedrick

Pile (plaintiff) and Pedrick (defendant) owned adjoining properties. Pedrick hired a surveyor to locate his property’s boundary line, prior to building a factory on the property. Pedrick sought to avoid building on Pile’s land, in order to prevent injury from factory-machine vibrations. Due to the surveyor’s error, the factory’s foundation wall encroached onto Pile’s property below the surface by one and three-eighths inches, for 50 feet. However, a brick wall built on the foundation was located entirely on Pedrick’s land. Pedrick attempted to negotiate with Pile by offering to make the brick wall a common wall and paying Pile damages for trespass. Pedrick also offered to allow Pile free use of the wall, on the condition that the third and fourth-floor factory windows would remain open until Pile chose to use the wall. Pile declined the offer and sought an injunction to remove the wall and windows. Pedrick’s answer to the injunction asserted that the wall was located entirely on his property. The court ordered Pedrick to remove the portion of the wall that encroached on Pile’s property and prohibited workers from entering onto Pile’s property to remove the wall. The court also ordered Pile and Pedrick to split court costs. On appeal, Pile claimed that the court erred in not directing Pedrick to remove the windows in the wall. Pedrick claimed that the court erred in failing to allow workers to enter Pile’s property to remove the portion of the wall encroaching on Pile’s property and in ordering the parties to split court costs.

[Editor's Note: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued two separate decisions in this matter, one addressing Pedrick's appeal from the lower court's decree and one addressing Pile's. For our brief on the court's other decision, please see https://www.quimbee.com/cases/pile-v-pedrick.]