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.

SAMUEL L. LONGENECKER AND AGNES L. LONGENECKER v. RICHARD MATWAY AND EDWARD MATWAY (07/01/83)

filed: July 1, 1983.

SAMUEL L. LONGENECKER AND AGNES L. LONGENECKER, HIS WIFE,
v.
RICHARD MATWAY AND EDWARD MATWAY, APPELLANTS



No. 813 Pittsburgh, 1981, Appeal from the Order of July 20, 1981 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Civil Division, No. 80 October, 1980.

COUNSEL

George Retos, Jr., Washington, for appellants.

Amy Marie Tonti, Washington, for appellees.

Cercone, President Judge, and Wieand and Beck, JJ.

Author: Cercone

[ 315 Pa. Super. Page 413]

Appellants, Richard Matway and Edward Matway, take this appeal from the decision of the court below construing against appellant the terms of a stipulation, entered into between appellants and appellees, Samuel L. Longenecker and his wife, Agnes L. Longenecker. Finding no error in the court's interpretation, we affirm.

Appellants were the owners of an automobile dealership in Rostraver Township, Westmoreland County, operated under the name of Rem Ford. In connection with this business, appellants leased certain property from appellees. On April 29, 1980, appellants notified appellees of their intentions to vacate the premises. Whereupon, appellees filed a complaint and confession of judgment against appellants, in response to which appellants agreed to and did enter into a stipulation with appellees to settle the dispute. On January 30, 1981, the stipulation was approved by the court and an appropriate order was filed. Despite the stipulation, appellees subsequently petitioned the court to release escrow funds and for a judgment against appellants because it was claimed that appellants failed to comply with the terms of the stipulation. A hearing was held on this matter on April 20, 1981.

Specifically, the point at issue, and the only one which we are now asked to examine, turns on the interpretation of the term "all parts department furniture", an element of the stipulation agreement between the parties. In relevant part, the stipulation agreement provided:

[ 315 Pa. Super. Page 4144]

. Upon vacation of the premises, the Plaintiffs [Appellees] agree that the personal property and improvements listed on the attached December 9, 1980 letter from George Retos, Esquire to Phillip J. Binotto, Jr., Esquire shall remain on the premises. Defendants [Appellants] represent to Plaintiffs that the aforesaid leasehold improvements are all in a good and working condition, and shall remain in said condition until the premises are vacated.

5. The parties agree that the term "office furniture" as set forth in the aforesaid December 9, 1980 letter shall include the following specific items:

A. A desk and two chairs in each of the three ...


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.