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.

VAGNONI v. BRIDGEPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL (03/22/66)

decided: March 22, 1966.

VAGNONI
v.
BRIDGEPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 65-5436, in case of William Vagnoni and Elva Vagnoni, his wife v. A. J. Brady and Bridgeport Borough Council.

COUNSEL

Edward J. Ozorowski, with him Geoghegan & Ozorowski, for appellant.

Bernard V. DiGiacomo, with him Fox, Differ, DiGiacomo & Lowe, for appellees.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell.

Author: Bell

[ 420 Pa. Page 412]

This is an appeal by the Borough Council of Bridgeport from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which granted a motion for summary judgment in a mandamus action filed by the plaintiff Vagnoni.

[ 420 Pa. Page 413]

Plaintiff is a general contractor in the Borough of Bridgeport. In May, 1961, plaintiff submitted to Aloysius J. Brady, the building inspector, a plan for the construction of a four unit apartment building on his land. A permit was issued for this plan. No action was taken on the proposed project by plaintiff until sometime prior to August, 1964. At that time, the same four unit plan was resubmitted, the original permit having lapsed. At the September, 1964 meeting of council the plan was referred to a committee. The four unit plan was approved by council in its December, 1964 meeting.

In October or November of 1964, plaintiff submitted to Brady preliminary plans for an eleven unit apartment building. Brady told plaintiff that state approval was required and that he could not consider the plan until such approval was obtained.

On January 14, 1965, plaintiff formally submitted to Brady the eleven unit plan with state approval. Brady "mistakenly" assumed that the eleven unit plan had been approved by council, and issued a building permit which specifically recited that it was for an eleven unit apartment building.

On April 9, 1965, plaintiff began construction of the eleven unit building. He arranged for a mortgage loan in the amount of $74,300, and incurred mortgage settlement expenses of $1,208, and architect fees of $300. After plaintiff had finished the excavation, he received on April 18, 1965, a letter from council ordering him to cease construction. Thereafter, on April 21, 1965, council ordered the permit rescinded.

On May 6, 1965, plaintiff filed the present complaint in mandamus asking that the Court order reissuance of the permit. Defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint on May 26, 1965. The preliminary objections were dismissed on ...


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.