Pile v. Pedrick case brief

 Pile v. Pedrick, Sup. Ct. of Penn., 1895

FACTS

1. strict property rule when dealing with encroachments
2. D built a wall and later discovered it went onto P land but it was an unintentional intrusion. D offered to make a party wall and give P free use of it but P declined
3. Trespass remedied in two ways:
   1. Treat as permanent tress pass and compensate in damages, or
   2. Compel to remove offending ends (even thought not economically efficient)
4. Case in court of equity – Property vs. Liability
5. Holding – Decree to take down and rebuild the entire wall, decree modified as to permit such removal to be made within one year from the date of filing
6. Factually not much different than Manillo case but this court applied property rule and Manillo leaned towards liability rule