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.

MCWILLIAMS v. LURIA. (06/28/62)

June 28, 1962

MCWILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
LURIA.



Appeal, No. 237, Jan. T., 1962, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 61-1503, in case of Mary E. McWilliams, Seth D. Seltzer, Jr., Kenneth Peter Barrow et al. v. Josephine Marx Luria. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

Benjamin T. Hopkins, II, with him Robert L. Trescher, for appellants.

Bernard M. Borish, with him Seymour Kurland, Maxwell Strawbridge, and Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, for appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.

Author: Bell

[ 407 Pa. Page 633]

OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL

Plaintiff brought an action in equity to enjoin the erection of a second building upon a tract of land which defendant had purchased from Mary E. McWilliams.

On April 15, 1959, the nominees of the parties entered into an agreement of sale for a tract of 1.1 acres on the south side of Presidential Boulevard North in Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pa. The Agreement provided, inter alia:

"12. Buyer agrees to improve the site with an*fn1 office building; final plans and specifications for said building to be subject to the approval of the Owner, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld."

On July 13, 1959, the property was conveyed to the defendant and on July 22, 1959, she applied for a building permit to erect an office building on the property in accordance with a plan which had been approved by the plaintiffs. The permit was granted and the building has been erected.

On January 3, 1961, defendant filed a plan for subdividing her tract. This plan was withdrawn because it would require a special exception. Thereafter, a new subdivision plan was filed which was approved by the municipal authorities, and defendant filed a new application for a building permit to erect a second building upon the aforesaid 1.1 acre tract. This permit was also granted by the township. Thereupon plaintiffs brought the present equitable action.

Plaintiffs at the trial of this suit asked one of their witnesses "What was your discussion with Mr. Strouse?"*fn2 Defendant's objection to this was sustained. Plaintiffs then offered to prove that prior to the written Agreement the parties ...


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.