Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the Purpose of Redevelopment of Callowhill East Redevelopment Area, Callowhill East Urban Renewal Area, Philadelphia, Including Certain Land, Improvements and Properties. L & A Creative Art Studio, Inc. 408-416 North 3rd Street, No. 2535 July Term, 1968.
Francis J. Moran, with him Leon Katz, for appellant.
Joseph E. Gold, with him Kates, Levesey & Edelstein, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. President Judge Bowman did not participate. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
This appeal is from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County entering judgment in favor of the appellee and against the Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Philadelphia (Authority) in the amount of $115,000.00.
This case has had a confusing development. It began when a Petition was filed by the appellee in the court below alleging that the appellee was the occupant of a portion of premises which had been condemned by the Authority, that the appellee had entered into a settlement with the Authority for condemnation damages in the amount of $115,000.00, and that this settlement was in the form of a Stipulation signed by attorneys for both parties. The appellee asked that this settlement be enforced in its favor. In its Answer, the Authority admitted that it had condemned the property in question, but denied that it had entered into a settlement with the appellee. The Authority did admit that one of its attorneys had signed the Stipulation cited by the appellee, but denied "that the document in question has the legal implications set forth by the Petitioner."*fn1 The lower court decided the case solely on the Petition and Answer, denying the Authority the right to introduce evidence, holding that an agreement between attorneys should be enforced as a matter of public policy, and stating that, there being no question of fact, an evidentiary hearing was not required.
In its appeal, the Authority has alleged that it attempted to amend its Answer to the Petition filed in the court below so as to deny that the property in question had ever been condemned, but the lower court in its opinion took no note of any such attempted amendment.*fn2 The Authority also argued that the Petition did
not allege that the attorney signing the stipulation had any authority to bind his principal, and that he did not in fact have such authority. The appellee has argued, however, that the sole issue was and is whether or not an attorney for the Authority signed the Stipulation. Since that was admitted by the Authority, the appellee claims that ...