Ladner v. Siegel

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtSADLER, J.
Citation144 A. 274,294 Pa. 368
PartiesLADNER et al. v. SIEGEL et al. (two cases).
Decision Date26 November 1928
144 A. 274
294 Pa. 368

LADNER et al.
v.
SIEGEL et al. (two cases).

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 26, 1928.


Appeals from Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Philadelphia County; McDevitt, President Judge.

Suit by Albert H. Ladner, Jr., and others against Clarence R. Siegel and others. From the judgment, both parties appeal. Reversed, with directions.

Argued before MOSOHZISKER, C. J., and FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER, and SCHAFFER JJ.

Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul and Brown & Williams, all of Philadelphia, for appellants.

Grover C. Ladner, (of Ladner & Ladner), of Philadelphia, for appellees.

SADLER, J. The plaintiffs are owners of certain residences in the city of Philadelphia, erected on land purchased from Siegel one of the defendants, subject to certain building restrictions. The latter determined, in 1927, to construct apartment houses in seven units on an adjoining block owned by him, surrounding three sides thereof, with stores on the other, fronting Pine street. On this thoroughfare it was also proposed to provide an entrance to a large garage within the inclosure, to be used by the tenants of the buildings surrounding it, as well as others desiring to make use of the same facilities. Averring the locality to be residential in character, and that the garage suggested was intended to be used generally by any auto owner desiring service, an injunction was asked to restrain the construction. It was further alleged that the conduct of such a business would be offensive, constituting a private nuisance, and also result in the violation of certain building restrictions by which the land was bound, as agreed to by the defendant grantor when he sold the lots on adjoining property to the complainants. The court below passed on the first question raised, holding that there could be no operation of a public garage in the clearly established residential community, and its decree was affirmed by this court. Ladner v. Siegel,

144 A. 275

293 Pa. 306, 142 A. 272. Whether the actual carrying on of the business for the use of the tenants of proposed apartments only would be so offensive as to justify restraint (George v. Goodovich, 288 Pa. 48, 135 A. 719, 50 A. L. R. 105; Mitchell v. Guaranty Corp., 283 Pa. 361, 129 A. 114) was not determined, as the prayer of the bill was to prevent the opening of a "public garage." Nor was it deemed necessary in the former proceeding to decide whether the building restrictions found in plaintiffs deeds could be enforced as against the land retained by the grantor. This latter question has, in an opinion filed this day, on appeal to 264 January term, 1928, Ladner v. Siegel, 144 A. 271, been decided adversely to the complainants.

In the former proceeding the defendants insisted that the building, as constructed and proposed to be used could be adapted to the handling of large number of automobiles without invasion of any rights of adjoining landowners, particularly since the cars would be cared for largely in underground storage rooms, and the view of the garage itself would be cut off by the new buildings which would entirely surround and conceal it. At that time the court was asked for permission to make temporary use of the structure, which had been built, notwithstanding the equity proceeding, under the control of a master to be appointed, so that it could be determined whether its actual operation would be objectionable and constitute a nuisance in fact. This proposed experimental test was properly refused, and a final order thereupon made prohibiting the public garage.

After the affirmance of the order made, a petition was presented to the court asking for a declaratory judgment fixing the rights of the defendants in the conduct of the garage, in case it was carried on in such a way as not to constitute a private nuisance. The court was asked to say that it was permissible to operate it in connection with one unit of the proposed apartment house, of sufficient size to accommodate 100 families, to be constructed on the southeast corner of Forty-Seventh and Pine streets, and also for the tenants of the Garden Court Apartments, located on the opposite side of the street, owned by a corporation of which the defendant was the holder of the entire capital stock, the unit about to be put up, or so-called annex, would not inclose the automobile storage house complained of, but abut on the east side thereof. A judgment was entered permitting the use of the garage by individual tenants, provided buildings were built on the three sides surrounding it, as defendant had set forth was the purpose in the first proceeding, but denying the right to use the garage by the occupants of the proposed single unit or to rent space therein for those residing in the building on the opposite side of Forty-Seventh street. In answer to a third query the court held the garage would not be considered a "public" one, so long as its use was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 practice notes
  • Johnson's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 2, 1961
    ...and the court will not decide future rights in anticipation of the event at which such future rights call for decision: Ladner v. Siegel, 294 Pa. 368, 144 A. 274. What exceptional reasons are there for taking this case out of the general rule? The petition merely alleges '* * * the further ......
  • Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, No. 7465.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 18, 1941
    ...quasi-judicial body. See: Shearer v. Backer, supra; Back's Guardian v. Bardo, 1930, 234 Ky. 211, 27 S.W.2d 960; Ladner v. Siegel, 1928, 294 Pa. 368, 144 A. 274; Williamsport v. Williamsport Water Co., 1930, 300 Pa. 439, 150 A. 652; Trustees of Columbia University v. Kalvin, 1929, 226 App.Di......
  • Moore v. Moore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 29, 1942
    ...will not decide future rights in anticipation of the event at which 25 A.2d 137 such future rights call for decision, Ladner v. Siegel, 294 Pa. 368, 144 A. 274. * * * Doubtless it would be more convenient for the executors to have us construe the will in advance, but this is by no means an ......
  • In re Cryan's Estate
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 24, 1930
    ...a function not contemplated by our organic law. Kariher's Petition (No. 1), 284 Pa. 455, 463, 464, 467-169, 131 A. 265; Ladner v. Siegel, 294 Pa. 368, 372-375, 144 A. 274; Reese v. Adamson, 297 Pa. 13, 15-17, 146 A. 262; Pittsburgh's Consol. City Charter, 297 Pa. 502, 504-508, 147 A. 525; S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
56 cases
  • Johnson's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 2, 1961
    ...and the court will not decide future rights in anticipation of the event at which such future rights call for decision: Ladner v. Siegel, 294 Pa. 368, 144 A. 274. What exceptional reasons are there for taking this case out of the general rule? The petition merely alleges '* * * the further ......
  • Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, No. 7465.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 18, 1941
    ...quasi-judicial body. See: Shearer v. Backer, supra; Back's Guardian v. Bardo, 1930, 234 Ky. 211, 27 S.W.2d 960; Ladner v. Siegel, 1928, 294 Pa. 368, 144 A. 274; Williamsport v. Williamsport Water Co., 1930, 300 Pa. 439, 150 A. 652; Trustees of Columbia University v. Kalvin, 1929, 226 App.Di......
  • Moore v. Moore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 29, 1942
    ...will not decide future rights in anticipation of the event at which 25 A.2d 137 such future rights call for decision, Ladner v. Siegel, 294 Pa. 368, 144 A. 274. * * * Doubtless it would be more convenient for the executors to have us construe the will in advance, but this is by no means an ......
  • In re Cryan's Estate
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 24, 1930
    ...a function not contemplated by our organic law. Kariher's Petition (No. 1), 284 Pa. 455, 463, 464, 467-169, 131 A. 265; Ladner v. Siegel, 294 Pa. 368, 372-375, 144 A. 274; Reese v. Adamson, 297 Pa. 13, 15-17, 146 A. 262; Pittsburgh's Consol. City Charter, 297 Pa. 502, 504-508, 147 A. 525; S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT