Pile v. Pedrick
Citation and Court
167 Pa. 296 (1895), Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Facts
In the course of constructing a party wall on the boundary between their properties, Pedrick’s contractors placed the wall’s foundation stones so that the stones extended 1 3/8 inches over the boundary line onto Pile’s property. The encroachment was entirely underground and caused no practical harm, but Pile brought suit demanding removal of the encroaching stones.
Issue
Whether a landowner is entitled to an injunction requiring removal of an underground foundation that encroaches a trivial distance onto the landowner’s property.
Holding
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Pile was entitled to an order requiring removal of the encroaching stones, notwithstanding the trivial nature of the encroachment and the disproportionate cost of correction.
Rule / Doctrine
A landowner has a property right to be free from any physical encroachment onto their land, however slight. The severity of the encroachment and the burden of removal are generally not relevant to the right to have the encroachment removed. Ad coelum and usque ad inferos — a landowner’s rights extend from the heavens to the center of the earth, encompassing subsurface encroachments.
Significance
Pile v. Pedrick is a classic illustration of the absolutist conception of property rights and the ad coelum doctrine. It is often taught alongside encroachment cases to explore the tension between strict property rules and equitable balancing, and raises the question of whether courts should instead award damages when the cost of injunctive relief is grossly disproportionate to the harm.