## Facts

- Agate Street was a forty-foot-wide strip of land located within Supermarkets General Corporation’s (SGC’s) record boundaries and bordering Tioga Coal Company’s property in Philadelphia.
- Agate Street appeared on a City plan as a “paper street,” was never opened for public use, and was later removed from the City plan.
- Around 1948, Tioga took control of a gate regulating access to Agate Street by placing its own lock on the gate.
- Tioga maintained the lock and controlled access to Agate Street until about 1978, when the gate was removed.
- For roughly thirty years, Tioga used the entirety of Agate Street in connection with its business (including vehicle access and related commercial use), in a manner the trial court found to be actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous.
- In 1978, Tioga filed an equity action seeking to quiet title to Agate Street by adverse possession.
- After prior proceedings addressing which limitations period applied, the trial court ultimately applied the 21-year period and found Tioga satisfied all elements except hostility.
- The trial court concluded hostility was missing because Tioga believed the City of Philadelphia owned Agate Street rather than SGC, and thus (in the trial court’s view) Tioga lacked the intent to dispossess the true owner.
- The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Tioga’s adverse possession claim on the same hostility rationale.
- Tioga appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Does “hostile” possession for adverse possession require a possessor to intend to oust the specific record owner, or can hostility be shown by objective acts of ownership even if the possessor mistakenly believes the land belongs to someone else (here, the City)?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed.
- The court held that Tioga’s long-term control of access to Agate Street—maintaining a locked gate for decades and using the strip as its own—was sufficient to establish hostile possession under a claim of right.
- The court ruled that Tioga’s mistaken belief that the City, rather than SGC, owned the land did not defeat hostility.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognizing Tioga’s title by adverse possession.

## Legal Principles

- To acquire title by adverse possession in Pennsylvania, possession must be actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, and hostile for the statutory period (generally 21 years).
- “Hostility” is evaluated by the possessor’s objective conduct—whether the possessor acts as an owner and holds the land against the world under a claim of right—not by personal animus or a purpose to dispossess a particular titled owner.
- A possessor’s mistake about who holds record title does not, by itself, negate hostility if the possessor’s acts are inconsistent with the true owner’s rights and are sufficient to place the true owner on notice of an adverse claim.
- Physical control measures that exclude others and signal ownership—such as maintaining a locked gate controlling entry for the statutory period—can satisfy the hostility requirement when the other elements are met.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Tioga’s decades-long, exclusive control of Agate Street through a locked gate and ongoing use constituted hostile possession under a claim of right, even though Tioga mistakenly believed the City owned the strip, and it reversed and remanded for entry of relief consistent with Tioga’s adverse possession claim.


Tioga Coal Co. v. Supermarkets General Corp., 546 A.2d 1 (1988)