## Facts

- Owners of adjoining parcels disputed a factory wall and foundation constructed by Pedrick next to the boundary line.
- Pedrick commissioned surveys and directed builders to keep the structure entirely on Pedrick’s land.
- The above-ground brick wall (about 18 inches thick) was entirely on Pedrick’s land along its full length.
- The wall rested on a thicker foundation (about two feet thick); for roughly 50 feet, the foundation crossed onto Pile’s land by about 1.5 to 1.625 inches on average.
- After discovery, Pedrick offered accommodations (including treating the wall as a party wall and paying damages), which Pile rejected.
- Pile sought equitable relief connected to the boundary-wall dispute, including relief relating to windows inserted (and proposed) in the wall.

## Issues

1. Whether a slight, mistaken foundation encroachment across a boundary line constitutes an actionable trespass warranting mandatory injunctive relief rather than damages.
2. Whether equity may require removal of the encroachment while also barring the encroacher from entering the plaintiff’s land to perform the removal.
3. Whether the court should order removal of, or enjoin further installation of, windows in the wall.
4. Whether the trial court properly allocated litigation costs between the parties.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s decree on both parties’ cross-appeals.
- The court treated the foundation intrusion as a trespass and upheld the order requiring removal of the encroaching portion.
- The court upheld the provision prohibiting Pedrick from entering Pile’s property to accomplish the removal, requiring any corrective work to be done from Pedrick’s side.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to grant additional window-related relief sought by Pile.
- The court affirmed the division of costs between the parties.

## Legal Principles

- A physical encroachment across a boundary line, even if minimal and caused by mistake, constitutes a continuing trespass.
- A landowner may insist on removal of an encroaching structure rather than accept damages or compelled accommodation.
- Equity may shape injunctive relief to protect the owner’s right to exclude, including by denying the trespasser permission to enter the owner’s land to cure the trespass.
- Allocation of costs in equity may reflect the court’s assessment of the circumstances and conduct of both parties.

## Conclusion

The court held that even a slight, unintended foundation encroachment is a trespass subject to mandatory removal, and it affirmed a decree requiring removal without allowing the encroacher to enter the neighbor’s land, while also leaving undisturbed the trial court’s limited treatment of window-related relief and its division of costs.


Pile v. Pedrick, 167 Pa. 296, 31 A. 646 (Pa. 1895)