Di Carlo v. Petrillo
| Decision Date | 29 December 1956 |
| Citation | 387 Pa. 212,127 A.2d 657 |
| Parties | Joseph DI CARLO, Jr. and Margherita DI Carlo, his wife, v. John PETRILLO and Eugene Petrillo, individually, Appellants, and Tracey Daniels, Inc., a corporation. Appeal of John PETRILLO and Eugene Petrillo. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
C. Francis Fisher, Brenlove. Fisher, Stein & Winters, Pittsburgh, for appellants.
James A. Ashton, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before STERN, C. J., and JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
The Order of the lower Court is affirmed on the following excerpts from the opinion of Judge Lewis:
'The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants, the adjacent property owners, from using an easement over the property of the plaintiffs, alleging that the easement had been terminated.
'The plaintiffs also asked for damages, but the Chancellor found that no actual damage had been proved by the plaintiffs, and therefore, no money damages were awarded.
'There was a provision in the deed to the plaintiffs' property, which adjoined that of the defendants, to the effect that the defendants were permitted to use an as auto ramp crossing over the plaintiffs' land 'so long as the second floor of (the defendants' building) is used and occupied as a garage or place for keeping and storing of automobiles.'
'It was the contention of the plaintiffs that the easement had terminated when one of the defendants, Eugene Petrillo, on April 9, 1952, leased the second floor of the dominant property to Tracey Daniels, Inc. as a manufacturing plant. The aforesaid company was engaged in the manufacturing business which had no connection whatsoever to the operation of a garage or the storing of automobiles.
'Both the plaintiffs and the defendants agree that the easement was a determinable one.
'The question before the Chancellor was whether or not the evidence was sufficient to establish the fact that the easement had terminated.
'After hearing the witnesses for both sides, studying the language used in the deed, and listening to the arguments of counsel for both parties, the Chancellor concluded that the easement contemplated the use of the second floor of the dominant property as a commercial garage or a place for the storing of automobiles, and that such use had ended when Tracey Daniels, Inc. entered into possession of the second floor and established their manufacturing plant. Therefore, the Chancellor, concluded that the rights in the easement over the property of the plaintiffs had terminated.
* * *
* * *
'It was clear from the testimony that during the time Tracey Daniels, Inc. was in possession of the second floor of the building, that it was used exclusively for manufacturing purposes, and that one or two cars from time to time might have been stored on the second floor.
'It was clear that when the lease was signed with Tracey Daniels, Inc. the second floor was not used as a commercial garage.
'The testimony was also clear that some time after Tracey Daniels, Inc. had leased the second floor and the question was raised as to whether or not the easement had been terminated by use other than a commercial garage, the defendants attempted to induce Tracey Daniels, Inc. to relinquish half of the second floor to permit the storage of cars in the other half of the second floor.
'The essential difference in the interpretation of the law in connection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leasehold Estates, Inc. v. Fulbro Holding Co., A--295
...64, 16 A.L.R.2d 602 (D.C.Cir.1949); Sachs v. Toquet, 121 Conn. 60, 183 A. 22, 103 A.L.R. 677 (Sup.Ct.Err.1936); Di Carlo v. Petrillo, 387 Pa. 212, 127 A.2d 657 (Sup.Ct.1956); Western Auto Supply Co. v. Kominz Tire Co., 48 N.Y.S.2d 256 (Sup.Ct.1944); The Tyler Co. v. Hansen, 20 N.J.Super. 30......
-
Leh v. Burke
...is not fatal to a convenant in a deed. See, e.g. Mishkin v. Temple Beth El, 429 Pa. 73, 239 A.2d ,00 (1968); Di Carlo v. Petrillo, 387 Pa. 212, 127 A.2d 657 (1956). The rule is that if an agreement is not clearly expressed, an effort is made by the court interpreting the language to give ef......
-
Parker v. Hough
...and many cases cited therein. See to the same effect, Brookbank v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co., 389 Pa. 151, 131 A.2d 103; DiCarlo v. Petrillo, 387 Pa. 212, 127 A.2d 657; Price v. Anderson, 358 Pa. 209, 220, 56 A.2d 215, 2 A.L.R.2d Appellants further contend that far from barring their right to m......
-
Parker v. Hough
......See to the. same effect, Brookbank v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co., 389. Pa. 151, 131 A.2d 103; DiCarlo v. Petrillo, 387 Pa. 212, 127 A.2d 657; Price v. Anderson, 358 Pa. 209,. 220, 56 A.2d 215, 2 A.L.R.2d 593. . . Appellants. further contend that far ......