Mrahunec v. Fausti

• Decision Date: 16 April 1956
• Citation: 385 Pa. 64,121 A.2d 878
• Parties: Adam MRAHUNEC, Appellant, v. Mary FAUSTI, also Known as Mary R. Fausti.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 878

121 A.2d 878

385 Pa. 64

Adam MRAHUNEC, Appellant, v. Mary FAUSTI, also Known as Mary R. Fausti.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 16, 1956.

Harold L. Roth, Ambridge, for appellant.

Wayne S. Luce, Freedom, Everett Y. Calvin, Beaver Falls, for appellee.

Before STERN, C. J., and JONES, BELL, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.

BELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from the Order of the Court below sustaining preliminary objections to a complaint in equity praying for specifi performance of an option to buy real estate embodied in a lease. The lease, dated March 1, 1949, provides in pertinent part:

'* * * lessor, * * * does hereby lease, to the lessee, * * * one store room, ¹ same being part of the lessors residence, locatied on 13th St, EXT, in the Borough of Conway, Beaver County and State of Pennsylvania, on lot #77 in a plan of lots formerly laid out by the Peoples land Co.

'Whereas: the lessor agrees to let the lessee use the land that was formerly lot #77, in said plan of lots only, for a gasoline service station only, and the store room for use as a grocery store and confectionery store only, * * *.

'Whereas: * * * the lessor agrees to rent said store room and land as heretofore mentioned, to the lessee for three (3) years, from the signing of this agreement, with the privilege of extending the lease for three (3) more years, making the limit of this lease to six (6) years, from the signing of this agreement under the following terms and conditions, * * *.

'Whereas: * * * the lessor, agrees to sell to the lesse [sic] said property at any time within the lease period heretofore mentioned, for the some of fourteen thousand (14000.00) cash, providing the lessee is still in possession of said property at time of sale.'

Plaintiff in his complaint sets forth the following:

'7. That by deed dated June 3, 1935, Ludwig Solero and Caterina Solero, his wife, conveyed property in the Borough of Conway being all of Lot No. 78 and the adjoining eleven feet of Log No. 77 * * * to Mary R. Fausti and Joseph Z. Fausti, here husband, * * *. Said property is more particularly bounded and described as follows, to-wit:

'Beginning at the southwest corner of Morgan Street, now Thirteenth Street, and Seventh Avenue, which corner is also the northeast corner of the premises hereby conveyed; thence along the westerly side of Seventh Street in a southwesterly direction, a distance of 52.5 feet to a point; thence in a westerly direction by a line parallel to the southerly side of Morgan Street, now Thirteenth Street, a distance of 120 feet to a point on the easterly side of Elm Alley; thence in a northerly direction along the easterly line of Elm Alley, a distance of 52.5 feet to a point at the southeast corner of Elm Alley and Thirteenth Street; thence easterly along the southerly side of Thirteenth Street, a distance of 120 feet.

'Having erected thereon a two-story brick building with store room on first floor and apartment on second floor.

'8. That by deed dated September 10, 1952, Ludwig Solero, widower, conveyed the balance of Lot No. 77--being the southern fourteen feet thereon * * * to Mary R. Fausti, defendant herein, * * *.

* * *

* * *

'(c) That the defendant be commanded to specifically perform the said contract and deliver to the plaintiff by deed of general warranty and free and clear of all encumbrances and of good and marketable title, title to the aforesaid described Lot No. 78 and the adjoining eleven feet of Lot No. 77 in the Peoples Land Company in the Borough of Conway, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Having erected thereon a two-story brick dwelling house with store room on the first floor and apartment on the second floor--and so much of the balance of Lot. No. 77, said plan, as a survey, will show necessary to complete title to the building thereon * * *.'

Defendant's amended preliminary objections provide, inter alia:

'3. The contract averred by the Plaintiff is ambiguous in that it does not clearly grant the Plaintiff any right of option to purchase real property belonging to the Defendant; it does not adequately identify or describe the extent of the real property that is allegedly held by the Defendant subject to the Plaintiff's right of option; and it does not clearly specify the time or period within which the alleged right of option could be exercised by the Plaintiff.

'5. The phrase 'said property' in the alleged option clause of the lease refers and can only refer to the property actually leased to Plaintiff, * * *.

'6. The alleged option, if existing as pleaded, existed for and during the three-year term of the original leasehold, to-wit, from March 1, 1949 throu...