In In re Private Road in Nescopeck Township, 281 Pa.Super. 341, 422 A.2d 199 (1980) the requested private road was from landlocked property to a public road. The Superior Court reversed because the trial court refused to appoint a board of view as the termini of a private road had not been specified and security had not been arranged, which are not required under the Private Road Act. The court in Pope held that the petitioners demonstrated strictest necessity because there was at present no access to the main road from their property and added: "Those petitioning for permission to construct a private road must first successfully meet the requirements necessary for the appointment of a Board of View." Id., 481 A.2d at 356. In Nescopeck Township the court held: "The singular issue raised on a rule to show cause why a Board of Viewers should not be appointed is whether the petition contains the requisite information so as to require that a Board be appointed." Id., 422 A.2d at 201. The Court declined to appoint a board of view under the Private Road Act in part because the termini of the proposed road had not been specified and no assurances of just compensation had been provided, the Superior Court held that nothing in Section 11 of the Private Road Act required setting forth the termini or provision of security as a condition precedent to appointment of a board of view, and it stated that it would not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.