Appeal, No. 149, Oct. T., 1962, from decree of County Court of Philadelphia, June T., 1960, No. 11759-D, in case of Benjamin Borens v. Paul Krywoshyja et ux. Decree amended and, as amended, affirmed.
Samuel Kratzok, for appellants.
William A. Robbings, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 252]
The unneighborly dispute between neighbors involves the use of an alleyway which separates their respective buildings.
The plaintiff has been the owner of the premises at 963 North Sixth Street, Philadelphia since February 27, 1942. His deed contains as a part of the conveyance the following: "Together with the free use, right, liberty and privileges of a certain four feet eight inches (4'8") wide alley to the north of said premises to the depth of thirty feet (30') from said Sixth Street as a passage way and water course at all times hereafter forever in common with the owners, tenants and occupants of the premises to the north."
The defendants have been the owners of the premises at 965 North Sixth Street, Philadelphia since March 26, 1954. Their deed contains as a part of the conveyance the following: "Together with the free and common use, right, liberty and privilege of the said alley in common with the tenants, owners or occupiers of the adjoining premises to the South at all times hereafter forever with the further privilege of building over said alley leaving at least eight feet headway in the clear."
The alleyway to which reference is made in the above deeds is entirely within the area described in the conveyance to the defendants and no part of it is within the area described in the conveyance to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff used the alleyway from December 1936, when he first occupied the premises at 963 North Sixth Street as a tenant, until 1959. He was in the plumbing business and carried tools, pipes and other equipment from his backyard through the alleyway to the street. In 1959, the defendants laid an 8 inch high strip of concrete over the width of the alley for a distance of about ten feet at the year part of the alley
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 253]
and boarded up a wooden gate through which access was available from the plaintiff's yard to the alley. This prevented the plaintiff from using the alleyway and required him to carry his tools, pipes ...