Breneiser v. Davis
Citations
- 134 Pa. 1
- 19 A. 433
- 1890 Pa. LEXIS 661
Syllabus
<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>(a) A deed for a house and lot described the property conveyed as “ containing, in front, including alley, 19 feet 5 inches, and in depth 120 feet; subject to the joint use of the alley on the north by the owner of the premises adjoining on the north: ”</p> <p>1. The meaning of this description is, that the lot conveyed has a uniform width of 19 feet 5 inches, throughout its entire length; and, in the absence of anything else restrictive, the vendee would be entitled to hold to that width, the reference to the alley not importing any change in width at its terminus.</p> <p>2. Nor will the existence of a fence extending from the rear of the house to the rear of the lot, on such a location as to reduce the width of the enclosure beyond the terminus of the alley to 17 feet, control the operation of such deed, when it is not mentioned therein and the grantor has power to convey to any line he may choose.</p> <p>(b) A vendor offered two adjoining lots at public sale. In the advertisements, and in written conditions of sale, both the lots were so described as to embrace a certain strip of ground. There was no division line between them established by the city plan, but the vendor had made a draft adopting a certain fence as the line of division.</p> <p>(c) By the draft, the strip mentioned was included in one of the lots known as No. 138. That lot was not sold at the public sale, but the other, known as No. 140, was then sold. The purchaser of No. 140 knew nothing of the draft, nor that the advertised description of No. 138 included the strip, nor that the fence on the ground was called for therein.</p> <p>(d) At the time of the public sale, and when he subsequently received his deed, the purchaser understood he was buying said strip. After the public sale, the vendor sold No. 138 privately, in accordance with its advertised description, the purchaser receiving his deed after that for No. 140 was on record:</p> <p>3. In such case, the purchaser
Judges: Clank, Clark, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.