Perkiomen R. Co. v. Bromer

• Decision Date: 11 March 1907
• Docket Number: 202
• Citation: 66 A. 359,217 Pa. 263
• Parties: Perkiomen Railroad Company, Appellant, v. Bromer
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

66 A. 359

217 Pa. 263

Perkiomen Railroad Company, Appellant, v. Bromer

No. 202

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 11, 1907

Argued February 4, 1907

Appeal, No. 202, Jan. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1905, No. 11, on verdict for defendant in case of Perkiomen Railroad Company v. Albert Bromer. Affirmed.

Ejectment for land in Schwenksville. Before WEAND, J.

At the trial, when the plaintiff was on the stand, the following offer was made:

We propose to prove that anterior to the execution of the release offered in evidence by the plaintiff an agreement was entered into between him and the Perkiomen railroad represented by Anthony H. Seipt, its president, by which, in consideration of his executing that release they would pay him $1,500 and give him an overhead crossing to his lands on the eastward of the proposed railroad; that when the release was drawn up and brought to him for execution he objected to it because of the omission of any stipulation as to the crossing; that Mr. Seipt then informed him that the insertion of such a stipulation in that release was not necessary because the railroad company was bound to give him a crossing anyhow, and that it was not customary to insert such a stipulation in a release; that thereupon, and upon the faith of Mr. Seipt's statement, he executed that release; that thereafter, about four months, a subsequent agreement was entered into by him with the said railroad, in the person of its president, Anthony H. Seipt, by which it was stipulated and agreed, that if he would not insist upon the construction of that overhead crossing the railroad company would suffer him to use and occupy the land then in his possession and included in that release until the railroad company did build him an overhead crossing, and that he would not have signed said release except upon the faith of those representations by Mr. Seipt.

Mr Evans: Objected to.

The Court: Are you basing this offer on the fact that Mr. Seipt was the president, or was the agent, or what?

Mr Freedley: Basing it upon the fact that he was the person who represented the railroad company in these negotiations, being by office president of the railroad company and its authorized agent.

The Court: I want to know whether you are basing it upon the fact that he was the agent who negotiated this transaction, or whether he was the president, or whether you are taking both?

Mr. Freedley: We are taking both of them; taking the position that he was the only party that we knew in this transaction.

The Court: The objection is, that the offer as made ought to be modified. Mr. Freedley in his offer of the two transactions states that a contract was made; I suppose you mean a parol contract?

Mr. Freedley: Yes, sir.

Mr. Evans: We object to this offer because it is an attempt on the part of the defendant to change and modify a written instrument; that all that is proposed has been swallowed in the deed that afterwards followed.

The Court: The objection is overruled. Plaintiff excepts. Bill sealed. [10]

Mr. Strassburger: "Q. On the day that the release was executed, what took place, January 22, 1869 -- what took place then? A. On that day Mr. Seipt, the president and agent of the Perkiomen Railroad Company, in company with 'Squire William Fox, came to my place of business and said, now we are ready to close up that transaction, and he said here is your release that you will have to sign. I read that release carefully, and I said, Mr. Seipt, this release don't say anything about that crossing which you agreed that I should have; you don't mention it at all. Mr. Seipt said the privilege of a crossing is not a matter of damages; he said the law compels us to give any man a crossing whose lands were cut in two parts; that seemed plausible to me; I believed it at the time, and upon that explanation I signed the release.

"Now, about four months after that, some time in May, I think, I met Mr. Seipt, the president and agent of the Perkiomen Railroad Company. I met him on the cars. I said, Mr. Seipt --"

Mr. Evans: We object to this witness testifying to any matter that occurred between him and Mr. Seipt relating to the construction of a crossing or to the use of this land unless either it was in writing by the company or the authority that Mr. Seipt was acting under is shown.

The Court: The objection is overruled for the present. Plaintiff excepts. Bill sealed. [11]

Mr. Strassburger: "Q. Well? A. I asked Mr. Seipt how about my crossing; he told me he would have it ready for me in time to get in my crops from the lowland; why, he said, Mr. Bromer, you know we are trying with all our might to have the railroad extended to Schwenksville and run the first train on the fourth of July morning; we are short in labor, and it is not hardly possible to get that crossing ready for you. He said, Mr. Bromer, have you no way to get out; could you find a way to get down there to get your crops? I said, yes, I can go over the bridge and the mill property and the Perkiomen, and get it off that way, but I said I could hardly haul a heavy load and it is very unhandy. Well, he said, Mr. Bromer, I wish you would do that, and in the next season you shall have your crossing ready in time for harvest. Well, I considered about this a little, and with the barn and yard as it was then, it was certainly of great importance to me, and especially the barn, and I said, Mr. Seipt, how would this do; I would be willing; I would be willing to do without a crossing as long as you let me use this ground and the barn; if I can have the use of that, I will go around and bring over my crops in that way, but, I said, whenever you make me a road, and you want to occupy this ground, I have no longer to build a barn except for the lowland which I have to fill up; then I want my crossing and must have it. He said that was all right; he seemed to be very much pleased; he seemed to be more pleased than I was; he extended his hand and said, Mr. Bromer, that is a bargain, and this was nearly thirty-six years ago, and I have kept my side of the bargain forthwith."

Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Errors assigned among others were (10, 11) rulings on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions.

The judgment is affirmed.

Montgomery Evans, with him John M. Dettra, for appellant. -- The declarations of the agent that a provision for a farm crossing need not be contained in the deed was not sufficient to reform the deed in the absence of evidence of authority of the agent other than that shown by the paper itself: Espy v. Anderson, 14 Pa. 308; Hale v. Henrie, 2 Watts, 143; Soles v. Hickman, 20 Pa. 180;...