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.

CARRATELLI v. CASTRODALE ET AL. (01/21/58)

January 21, 1958

CARRATELLI, APPELLANT,
v.
CASTRODALE ET AL.



Appeal, No. 149, April T., 1957, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Dec. T., 1954, No. 224, in case of Domenico Carratelli v. Anna Matteo Castrodale et al. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

George A. Baldwin, with him Baldwin and Baldwin, for appellant.

A. G. Helbling, with him Frank C. Lewis, for appellees.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 427]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

Plaintiff brought an action to quiet title and obtain possession of land sold at a tax sale. The small triangular lot in question was approximate to land upon which plaintiff had built a small apartment house. In their answer defendants alleged the invalidity of plaintiff's title acquired from the County Commissioners of Beaver County, who in turn had acquired the land under a tax sale from the County Treasurer of Beaver County. Defendants, who were in possession

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 428]

    of the disputed land, in their answer also asserted title based on adverse possession for over thirty years.

At the trial, as an essential part of plaintiff's proofs, he offered in evidence, as exhibits, a deed from the county treasurer, dated July 19, 1943, to the county commissioners, and a deed from the commissioners to plaintiff, dated June 28, 1945.*fn1 Defendant objected to their admission because the property as claimed was lumped with other parcels at the sale for which the assessments and returns were separate, and because the description was not sufficient to identify the property.

The trial judge sustained defendants' objections to the admission of these deeds, and granted defendants' motion for a compulsory non-suit for the reason that plaintiff failed to establish his title and right to possession by the proofs offered. The court below later denied the motion to take off the non-suit, stating that the deeds offered by plaintiff to establish his title had no validity in law, and that plaintiff failed to prove title in himself. Plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

Plaintiff does not point out any error in the refusal to take off the non-suit but questions the sufficiency of the defense to the action. In denying the motion to take off the non-suit the court below properly applied as controlling the ruling in Boulton v. Starck, 369 Pa. 45, 85 A.2d 17. In that case the Supreme Court held that the ...


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.