Notes:Hulburt Alley

From Pittsburgh Streets

To do

Wants Fence Removed.—Alleging that the H. K. Porter Company and the McConway–Torley Company, have usurped part of Hulbert alley, between Forty-eighth and Forty-ninth streets, Malachy O'Donnell yesterday filed a bill in equity asking that the defendants be compelled to remove from the alley a wooden fence built across the thoroughfare about the first of last September. A mandatory injunction is asked for.

The plaintiff also asks that the H. K. Porter Company be compelled to remove all obstructions of materials, ashes, etc., from Salton street, and that the company be restrained from further obstructing the street. The plaintiff owns property at Forty-ninth and Harrison streets and is entitled to free use of the alley and the street in question.

  • 1911-04-19: Source:Court-affirms-old-principle
  • 1911-11-01 (Newspapers.com 87356302): "Supreme Court Hears Appeals.— . . . Another suit which was argued was the appeal of H. K. Porter Company from the decree of common pleas court No. 2, in which the ordinance of city councils vacating the west half of Forty-ninth street, between Harrison street and the Allegheny Valley railroad was declared void and an injunction was granted restraining the company from enclosing or encumbering the street. The suit was brought by Malachy O'Donnell, a property owner, as the plaintiff."
  • O'Donnell v. Pittsburgh, 234 Pa. 401, 83 A. 314 (1912): Pennsylvania State Reports, vol. 234, pp. 401–413 (Google Books 9VJOAQAAIAAJ, u_HzAAAAMAAJ) — 49th Street
    • Apparently the actual vacation of 49th Street was upheld: "No decree [from the court below] was entered against the City of Pittsburgh or the McConway and Torley Company. ¶ It will be observed that this appeal, which was taken by the H. K. Porter Company, does not raise the question of the right of the City of Pittsburgh to vacate a street laid out in the Bayard plan of lots and dedicated by him to public uses. It is true that the bill prays that the ordinance vacating the street be declared void, but the prayer was not granted, and the decree simply went against the H. K. Porter Company, restraining it from closing or obstructing the street."
  • O'Donnell v. H. K. Porter Company, 238 Pa. 495, 86 A. 281 (1913): Pennsylvania State Reports, vol. 238, pp. 495–504 (Google Books 1_LzAAAAMAAJ); Atlantic Reporter, vol. 86, pp. 281–284 (Google Books qghCAQAAMAAJ); https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/donnell-v-h-k-889337375 — Calton Street and Hulburt Alley
    • Opinion of court below:

5. This conveyed right of way [plaintiff's] is appurtenant to the land, and is wholly distinct from the public right of passage, and the vacation by the municipality of a street on the plan, will not divest the plaintiff's right to have the street left open, . . . .

. . .

9. The plaintiff has a private right of way or easement in Calton street and Hemlock alley paramount to the right of the city to vacate.

. . .

12. The City of Pittsburgh may have the right to vacate Calton street and Hulburt alley to the extent of relieving the said city from its liability to maintain and keep in repair the said street and alley, but this cannot deprive the plaintiff of his right-of-way or easement over said street and alley, which is paramount to the right of the City of Pittsburgh.

Source:Lewis-1915, p. 62: "9 Hulbert ay. 135 Forty-eighth to Fiftieth. 94, 96. I-18"

Source:Polk-1915, p. 54: "HULBERT AY, from 135 48th to 50th, 9th wd. / 4900 Forty-ninth. / Fiftieth."

Neither Source:Bloom-1947 nor Source:Bloom-1951 lists Hulburt Way (nor under Hemlock).

Source:Gross (1953) lists "HEMLOCK AVE / fr 35 48th St e to 50th St (E20) / 5–6 bl ne Tr 94, 95 to all nos" (no Hulburt).

Retrieved from "https://www.zifyoip.com/pgh/index.php?title=Notes:Hulburt_Alley&oldid=14938"