Opinion
November 16, 1964.
January 12, 1965.
Courts — Equity — Jurisdiction — Exclusive statutory remedy.
Where a remedy or method of procedure is provided by any statute, the directions of such statute shall be strictly pursued and such remedy or procedure is exclusive; in such a situation a court of equity does not have jurisdiction to try the issues.
Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 330, Jan. T., 1963, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1963, No. 2413, in case of Michael Kurman, Stella Kurman, and Michael Kurman, trading as Fox Chase Auto Body and Motor Repair, v. City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Parking Authority. Decree vacated.
Equity.
Preliminary objections of defendant, City of Philadelphia, sustained and complaint dismissed, opinion by WATERS, J. Plaintiffs appealed.
Joseph A. Malloy, Jr., with him Hamilton, Darmopray Malloy, for appellants.
Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Deputy City Solicitor, with him Gerald Gornish, Assistant City Solicitor, and Edward G. Bauer, Jr., City Solicitor, for appellees.
Plaintiffs-appellants filed a complaint in equity seeking to restrain defendant City from interfering with certain alleged property rights; defendants preliminarily objected on the ground that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. The lower court sustained the position taken by the defendants and dismissed the complaint, from which action plaintiffs appeal to our Court.
It appears from the opinion of the lower court that its decision was based upon the alternative grounds (1) that under the Act of April 8, 1846, P. L. 272, § 1, 17 Pa.C.S.A. § 299, it had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction against the erection of public works "until the questions of title and damages shall be submitted, and finally decided by a common-law court. . . ." or (2) that plaintiffs' only interest in the property was "a license at will which was terminated. . . ." We express no opinion on the propriety of either of these grounds.
At oral argument, it was acknowledged that the purpose of the action instituted by plaintiffs was to have a determination made by the court in equity to establish whether or not plaintiffs had a perpetual right-of-way over land purchased by defendants from a third person, from which land plaintiffs have been excluded and for which they desire compensation.
Equity was not the proper forum to try such issues, because there is an appropriate statutory remedy which must be pursued. Schwab v. Pottstown Borough, 407 Pa. 531, 180 A.2d 921 (1962). So that plaintiffs should not be prejudiced by any prior judicial determination, in their pursuit of compensation before a board of view for the alleged seizure of property rights, the decree of the lower court is vacated without prejudice.
Decree vacated. Costs on appellants.