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.

DOMINECK ET UX. v. TUSKAN ET AL. (09/12/63)

September 12, 1963

DOMINECK ET UX.
v.
TUSKAN ET AL., APPELLANTS.



Appeals, Nos. 26 and 27, April T., 1963, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, July T., 1956, No. 141, and Jan. T., 1957, No. 493, in cases of Patsy Domineck et ux. v. Andrew Tuskan et ux., and Same v. John Falatovich et ux. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

Henry E. Shaw, with him Scales and Shaw, for appellants.

Robert M. Carson, for appellees.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).

Author: Watkins

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 610]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

These appeals are from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County dismissing the exceptions of the parties and affirming and adopting the decree nisi entered by the Chancellor.

These cases were tried by the court below, without a jury, under a written agreement between the parties in accordance with the Act of April 22, 1874, P.L. 109, 12 PS ยง 688.

The cases involve actions to quiet title. The first was instituted by the plaintiffs, Patsy Domineck and Florence Domineck, his wife, the appellees, against the defendants, Andrew Tuskan and Kathryn Tuskan, appellants; the second, by the appellees against John Falatovich and Leona Falatovich, appellants. The actions were to quiet title to a 15 foot strip of land 170 feet in length, to which the plaintiffs alleged their ownership. It lies between the property admittedly owned by the Dominecks and the property admittedly owned by the Tuskans and the Falatovichs. The 15 foot strip of land is to the west of the property owned by the Dominecks and to the east of the property owned by the Tuskans and the Falatovichs.

The testimony revealed that each of the parties or their predecessors in title had at sometime or other exercised partial dominion over portions of the strip. Neither are able to show that they had established title by adverse possession for a period of twenty-one years.

According to the Chancellor's opinion in the decree nisi, the deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs were ambiguous and the opinion of the court en banc below holds as follows:

"In the first deed, the description of the tract conveyed reads: 'Beginning at a point in the center of said road...'. The defendants have urged upon the Court that ...


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.