Coues v. Hallahan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Coues v. Hallahan, 209 Pa. 224 (Pa. 1904)
58 A. 158; 1904 Pa. LEXIS 593
Brown, Cxjeiam, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Thompson
Coues v. Hallahan
Opinion of the Court
There were two restrictions upon the property, either of which would bar a recovery ■ by the plaintiffs. The restriction by ordinance did not absorb or supersede the restriction by the deed, for even if the ordinance should be repealed the covenant in the deed would still restrict the use of the five feet on the line of Chestnut street. .The effect of the ordinance is well stated by the learned judge below, and on his opinion the order discharging the rule for judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Deeds—Building restriction—Marketable title—Vendor and vendee. A restriction in a deed in a line of title to a lot restraining the erection of buildings within five feet of the line of the abutting street will prevent the owner from making a good and marketable title to the lot under an agreement by which the lot was to be conveyed “ free from all restrictions; ” and this is the case although an ordinance of the city subsequent in date to the deed forbade the erection or re-érection of any building within five feet of the line of the street. In such a case while the ground involved in the restriction could not be actually built upon by the owner, he would be entitled to such damages as might be awarded for taking the property into the bed of the street, and the amount of the claim to be presented before a jury appointed to assess damages might be materially affected by the character of his title to the property involved.