McKelvy v. Allegheny County

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
McKelvy v. Allegheny County, 238 Pa. 580 (Pa. 1913)
86 A. 521; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 1013
Brown, Elkin, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter

McKelvy v. Allegheny County

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Even if J. G. Chalfant, the county engineer, did make the agreement set forth in the twelfth paragraph of the bill of complaint, he had no authority to bind the county commissioners to it, and nothing appears in the five facts, properly found by the court below, which entitles the appellant to the relief prayed for. This clearly appears from the second, third and fourth legal conclusions of the learned chancellor, and upon them the decree is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Reference

Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Equity — Contracts—Enforcement of contracts — Remedy at law —Authority of agent — County engineer. In a proceeding in equity against a county to prevent the defendant from trespassing on certain property and for an order directing defendant to restore buildings and equipment, and to ascertain damages, it appeared that the plaintiff had been the owner of certain land which was condemned by the defendant for the approaches of a bridge; that on appeal from the award of viewers th.e defendant had agreed, in consideration of plaintiff’s making no claim for damages to a gas well located on the ground in question, “to permit the gas well to remain as now- located so long as it shall continue to produce gas and to so construct and maintain the bridge approaches thereto that space shall be left necessary for the free use and operation of the said gas well and the construction and operation of machinery and appliances necessary for its maintenance and operation”; and that in the construction of the bridge abutments certain pipe connections and the' boiler and engine house-at the well were necessarily removed and a nearby wall was damaged. There was evidence tending to show that the county engineer personally agreed to replace the boiler and engine house. The court below dismissed the bill on the ground that no duty rested upon defendant under the contract except to leave uncovered the place where the well was located; that it was immaterial whether the county engineer made the further agreement alleged, and that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. Held, no error.