B. Zalman and S. Zalman, his Wife v. City of Chester
165 A.3d 82
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Bernard and Sandra Zalman sued the City of Chester to quiet title to portions of Yarnall Street and West Front Street adjacent to their properties; the trial court awarded West Front Street to the City and the western half of Yarnall Street to the Zalmans.
- The disputed West Front segment lies along a historic railroad/right‑of‑way near the Delaware River; the Zalmans argued the roadway was never dedicated/accepted for public use prior to the Act of 1889.
- The City relied on historical materials and 19th‑century local cases showing streets and rail use in the area before 1889, arguing the Act of 1889 (which extinguishes unopened plotted streets unused for 21 years) did not apply.
- The Zalmans argued the railroad was a private freight/contract carrier and thus its use did not constitute public use sufficient to establish dedication and acceptance.
- For Yarnall Street, the City had passed an ordinance closing the portion to vehicular traffic (1983) and physical barricades were placed; the trial court treated this as a de facto municipal vacation and awarded that portion to the Zalmans.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed in full: West Front remained public (City), and the Yarnall segment was effectively vacated by municipal will (Zalmans).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act of 1889 bars the City’s claim to West Front Street | Zalmans: West Front was never dedicated/accepted for public use before 1889; early railroad use was private freight and not public use | City: Historical plats, ordinances, and long railroad use show dedication and municipal acceptance before 1889, so the Act does not apply | Court: West Front was dedicated, accepted, and in public use before 1889; Act of 1889 inapplicable; title quieted in City |
| Whether railroad use by freight/contract carriers can constitute public use supporting acceptance of a street | Zalmans: Freight railroad was private/commercial and not a public use; distinction between common carrier and contract carrier defeats public‑use finding | City: Historical cases and local practice show rail use supported public acceptance; evidence did not establish limited private use only | Court: Facts showed rail and municipal acts amounted to public use and acceptance; the freight character did not negate public nature |
| Whether Yarnall Street was legally vacated without a formal ordinance expressly vacating the street | Zalmans: The City’s ordinance closing Yarnall to vehicles, long abandonment, and physical barricading manifest municipal will to vacate | City: Formal statutory vacation requires specific ordinance and procedures; mere closure to vehicles or temporary barricades insufficient | Court: Under Hasenflu exception, municipal approval followed by physical closing/barricading manifested municipal will; de facto vacation stood; title quieted for Zalmans |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion reviewing historical evidence and maps | Zalmans: Reliance on late maps and borough cases insufficient to show pre‑1889 public use | City: Trial court correctly credited historical cases and maps showing dedication/use | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court’s factual findings supported by competent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Quicksall v. City of Philadelphia, 35 A. 606 (Pa. 1896) (Act of 1889 relieves owners from servitude of plotted but unopened streets; act not retroactive to streets already used)
- Osterheldt v. City of Philadelphia, 45 A. 923 (Pa. 1900) (Act of 1889 has no retroactive effect where streets were opened and used before the statute)
- In re Widening of State Road, 84 A. 686 (Pa. 1912) (public use of part of a dedicated road establishes acceptance of the full dedicated width; act applies only to newly laid out but unused streets)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., 106 A. 724 (Pa. 1919) (railroad construction and municipal acts can constitute acceptance of a dedicated street and public use prior to the Act of 1889)
- White v. Smith, 42 A. 125 (Pa. 1899) (definition of public use: open to the indefinite public; distinction between private and public uses)
- Hasenflu v. Commonwealth, 179 A.2d 216 (Pa. 1962) (exception to formal‑ordinance requirement: municipal approval plus actual physical closing/barricade can demonstrate municipal will to vacate a street)