Yeatts v. Doyle
| Decision Date | 27 February 1899 |
| Docket Number | 88 |
| Citation | 42 A. 468,190 Pa. 129 |
| Parties | John W. Yeatts and Amos W. Troth, trading as Yeatts & Troth, Appellants, v. William J. Doyle and James G. Doak, trading as Doyle & Doak, and the Real Estate Company of Philadelphia |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 17, 1899
Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from decree of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1897, No. 1127, dismissing bill in equity. Affirmed.
Bill in equity for an injunction. Before BREGY, J.
All the facts necessary for a proper understanding of the case appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
The decree of the court below is affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed at costs of appellants.
Theodore F. Jenkins, for appellants. -- The fact that the plaintiffs were only tenants for years while the Real Estate Trust Company owned in fee gives the latter no greater rights than the former during the term: Newhoff v. Mayo, 48 N.J Eq. 619; Jones on Easements, sec. 225.
Where an owner of one of two properties abutting on an alley erected a gate and built over the half of the alley adjoining his property, it was held that such act was an invasion of the rights of the other: Ellis v. Academy of Music, 120 Pa. 608; McKee v. Perchment, 69 Pa. 342.
The defendant company having become the landlord of the plaintiffs, owed them, as such, the duty of not interfering with their rights: McClurg v. Price, 59 Pa. 420.
The plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction to protect their rights: Ferguson's App., 117 Pa. 426; Yeaton's App. 105 Pa. 125; Appeal of St. Andrew's Church, 67 Pa. 518; Muzzarelli v. Hulshizer, 163 Pa. 643; Landell v. Hamilton, 175 Pa. 327; Allen v. Hamilton, 175 Pa. 339; Meigs v. Milligan, 177 Pa. 66; Clark v. Martin, 49 Pa. 289; Ehret v. Gunn, 166 Pa. 384.
Joseph De F. Junkin, with him John C. Bell, for appellees. -- While not directly involved in the case, this exact question has been considered and fully passed upon by this Court in the case cited by appellants: Academy of Music v. Ellis, 120 Pa. 608. The case of Hobson v. Phila., 150 Pa. 595, cited by appellants is not applicable.
The general subject of easements has been before this Court and other courts in many cases, especially easements of right of way. The last reported decision is that of Kohler v. Smith, 39 W.N.C. 359. See also, Hartman v. Fick, 167 Pa. 18, Connery v. Brooke, 73 Pa. 80, Stevenson v. Stewart, 7 Phila. 293, and Patterson v. Phila. & Reading R.R. Co., 26 W.N.C. 327.
In New York it is held that the right of passage over land is not violated by building over the passage, leaving a space high enough for the uses specified: Hollins v. Demorest, 129 N.Y. 676; Grafton v. Moir, 130 N.Y. 465; Tyler v. Cooper, 47 Hun, 94; Frank v. Benesch, 74 Md. 58; Knabe v. Levelle, 23 N.Y.S. 818.
Before STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL, DEAN and FELL, JJ.
This is a bill for an injunction to restrain defendants from digging away an alley, and interfering with plaintiffs in the free use of the same. The facts are very fully found by the court below. The complainants, under a lease for a term expiring March 10, 1899, are in the occupancy of premises 1344 Chestnut street, with the privilege of a four feet alley westward to Broad street; the defendant, the Real Estate Trust Company, became the lessee for fifty years of 1348 Chestnut street, cornering on Broad and extending along Broad southward to a four feet alley leading westward to Broad from the premises 1344 occupied by plaintiffs. The trust company, also, about the same time, became the owner of lot 109, South Broad street, bounded on the north by the same alley; it thus became the lessee and owner of the entire frontage at that point on Broad street embracing the alley, but subject of course to plaintiffs' right to use of same. This right is described in plaintiffs' lease as "the privilege of the passageway in the rear leading into Broad street." In addition to the frontage on Broad street, embracing the exit from the four feet alley, the trust company, on February 1, 1897, acquired by proper conveyance the fee simple of premises 1344 occupied by plaintiffs, who afterwards attorned to and paid rent to the company. All these purchases were made by the trust company, with a view to the erection of a large and costly building on that corner covering the entire front of its ownership on Broad street. In its plans and specifications for building, and its contract with Doyle & Doak, the builders, the company recognized the privilege of plaintiffs during their term in the passageway or four feet alley, and exacted from the builders a stipulation, as follows:
The court below has found as a fact, that during the progress of the building, the alley was maintained at its full width, and although necessarily changed in appearance above and underneath, by the character of the structure built over, under, and around it, yet that nothing was done which in any way restricted plaintiffs' privilege or right as theretofore enjoyed by them. And further, as a conclusion of law from...
To continue reading
Request your trial