Appeal, No. 117, Jan. T., 1953, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1952, No. 4815, in case of Nine-Ten Chestnut Corporation v. The Philadelphia Parking Authority. Judgment affirmed.
Samuel A. Goldberg, with him Robert B. Wolf and Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, for appellant.
J. Harry LaBrum, with him Lewis Weinstock and Conlen, LaBrum & Beechwood, for appellee.
Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD
This was a bill in equity filed to enjoin the Philadelphia Parking Authority from constructing parking
facilities at 1021-29 Chestnut Street. The court sustained preliminary objections which alleged that the plaintiff set forth no cause of action.
Nine-Ten Chestnut Corporation is the owner of real estate 98 feet by 230 feet at No. 910-16 Chestnut Street, which was acquired subsequent to the Act of 1949, P.L. 969, 53 PS. § 10271 et seq., extending the Parking Authority Law to all cities of the Commonwealth.
On or about October 1, 1951, the Philadelphia Parking Authority purchased premises at 1021-29 Chestnut Street, and since that time the Authority has openly operated a parking lot without objection from anyone. A year later, on October 1, 1952, the plaintiff sent it a letter calling to its attention that the plaintiff had acquired its property before the Authority had purchased the real estate in the 1000 black, and suggesting that the Authority await a report from the Mayor's Master Traffic Committee which might lead to its building elsewhere.
Instead of adopting the suggestion the Authority caused public announcement to be made that it was ready to let contracts for a parking garage its Chestnut Street site.
In the first place it will be noted that at the time of the filing of the bill the plaintiff was not using its real estate in the 900 block for the purpose of a garage for off-street parking. In the second place it is not averred that its intention to use the same was communicated to the defendant at or about the time of its purchase in October, 1951. Thirdly, the written notice given under date of October 1, 1952, merely called to the attention of the Authority that the plaintiff's property had been ...