Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HOFFMAN ET AL. v. BALKA (04/15/54)

April 15, 1954

HOFFMAN ET AL.
v.
BALKA



COUNSEL

Harry M. Sablosky, Norristown, for appellants.

Anthony L. Differ, Fox, Differ & Honeyman, Norristown, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ.

Author: Ervin

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 345]

ERVIN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the entry of judgment on the pleadings. Appellants instituted an action in assumpsit for the recovery of $9,500, the balance of the purchase price of real estate under an agreement of sale. Appellee Filed an answer and counterclaim for the recovery of $1,000, the down money paid at the time of the execution of the agreement of sale. There being no facts in dispute, both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. Appellants' motion was denied, appellee's motion for judgment on the counterclaim was allowed and judgment entered thereon.

Appellants are the owners of part of lot No. 27 in a subdivision comprising 73 lots known as Glenmore Farms, located in Glenside, Abington Township, Pennsylvania. These lots were made subject to building restrictions and limitations by deed. The relevant restrictions are:

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 346]

'A. All lots in the tract shall be known and described as residential lots except those lots which are especially excepted in Paragraph 'B' below. * * *

'B. Lot No. 27 is restricted to commercial use for retail merchandising and no business shall be conducted thereon until it has been approved in writing by the committee referred to in paragraph (i) hereof. However, if such committee is not in existence or fails to approve or disapprove the proposed type of business within thirty days then such approval will not be required provided the business is not of an illegal nature nor in violation of paragraph (e) hereof.

'E. No noxious or offensive trade shall be carried on upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.

'I. No building shall be erected on any lot until the design and location thereof have been approved in writing by a Committee appointed by the subdivider or elected by a majority of the owners of lots in said subdivision. However, in the event that such committee is not in existence or fails to approve or disapprove such design or location within thirty days then such approval will not be required provided the design and location on the lot conform to and are in harmony with existing structures in the tract. * * *

'K. These covenants and restrictions are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them until January 1, 1969, at which time said ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.