Bollinger v. Palmerton Area Communities Endeavor, Inc.

65 Pa. D. & C.2d 723, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 174
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County
DecidedJune 21, 1973
Docketno. 21
StatusPublished

This text of 65 Pa. D. & C.2d 723 (Bollinger v. Palmerton Area Communities Endeavor, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bollinger v. Palmerton Area Communities Endeavor, Inc., 65 Pa. D. & C.2d 723, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 174 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1973).

Opinion

HEIMBACH, P. J.,

In determining the matter before us, we are to be guided by the following established principles of law once again reiterated in Watson v. Zanotti Motor Company, 219 Pa. Superior Ct. 96, 98:

“ ‘In considering the demurrer, every well-pleaded material fact set forth in the complaint, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, must be taken to be admitted.

“ ‘ [i] n determining whether a demurrer should be sustained and the complaint dismissed the question is whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible.

“ ‘ [I]f there is any doubt as to whether the demurrer should be sustained, such doubt should be resolved in favor of refusing to [sustain the demurrer]”

Summarized, plaintiffs’ amended complaint states:

That they donated a 16-acre tract of land to defendant in 1960 under a written agreement1 that provided [726]*726they would have the right to defeat the conveyance if the land was used for any other than industrial purposes and the purposes provided in the articles of incorporation.2 Likewise, if any part of the land thus [727]*727not being used for industrial purposes was condemned, they would be entitled to receive the proceeds.

In 1968, defendant conveyed a right-of-way to Pennsylvania Power & Light Company for $19,000. Plaintiffs claim the proceeds, alleging such conveyance was not for industrial purposes.

Defendant states in its brief the questions presented for determination are these:

1. Does defendant’s grant to Pennsylvania Power & Light Company of the aforesaid right-of-way constitute any purpose whatsoever which is in furtherance of the purposes as set forth in defendant’s Articles of Incorporation?

2. Where the contract between plaintiffs and the defendant defines “industrial purposes,” inter alia, as land used as the right of way to any land, whether within or without the conveyed premises, does defendant’s grant of a right-of-way to Pennsylvania Power & Light Company constitute an “industrial purpose”?

3. Where the contract between plaintiffs and defendant permits plaintiffs to recover monetary compensation only when land is not used for industrial purposes and is condemned by the right of eminent domain by any governmental or municipal authority, does the voluntary grant of a right-of-way to Pennsylvania Power & Light Company constitute a condemnation by a governmental or municipal authority?

The agreement clearly shows plaintiffs donated this land for the purposes for which the corporation was [728]*728formed, viz, to bring employment into the area by making lands and buildings available to employers: Footnote 2, supra. The agreement likewise clearly shows that plaintiffs intended that if the lands were not used for the purposes for which the land was donated, they had the right to have the property donated reconveyed to them. -T-he- agreement likewise specifically provided that if any part of the land was taken by a condemnation proceeding, the proceeds therefrom belonged to plaintiffs.

We adopt the statement of the court in Unit Vending Corporation v. Lacas, 410 Pa. 614, at 617, viz.:

“The intention of the parties is paramount and in construing such a contract, the court will adopt the interpretation, which under all of the circumstances of the case, ascribes the most reasonable, probable and natural conduct of the parties, bearing in mind the objects manifestly to be accomplished:” (citing cases).

Likewise see Robert F. Felte, Inc. v. White, 451 Pa. 137.

Plaintiffs’ vague allegation in their complaint that the right-of-way conveyed to Pennsylvania Power & Light was not for industrial purposes was clarified at argument. There is no dispute that the right-of-way was intended to be and is being used by Pennsylvania Power & Light as a power trunk line and furnishes no electricity to the premises.

This use of the land by Pennsylvania Power & Light, albeit for industrial purposes as far as Pennsylvania Power & Light is concerned, is clearly not in furtherance of defendant’s purposes as set forth in the articles, nor as an intended use of the land under the agreement.

It is not enough that a right-of-way granted by defendant corporation is used for industrial purposes. It meets the conditions of the agreement only if such [729]*729industrial purpose is in furtherance of the purposes as set forth in the articles of incorporation purpose clause of Palmerton Area Communities Endeavor, Inc., viz.:

“To promote the economic development of the Palmerton trade area and for that purpose, in order to create employment in this area to [do the following] . . .” (Italics supplied.)

The grant of the right-of-way to Pennsylvania Power & Light does not, in any fashion contemplated by the parties, promote the economic development of the Palmerton trade area nor create employment in this area. It may be argued as logically that such trunk power line has the opposite effect by making other areas available for industrial development to the disadvantage of the Palmerton area.

This disposes of questions one and two.

For the reason hereinafter stated, we need not decide whether the voluntary grant of the right-of-way to Pennsylvania Power & Light is tantamount to a condemnation by it, nor whether the provision in the agreement for plaintiffs’ right to the proceeds in the case of a condemnation by a governmental or municipal authority equally applies to a condemnation by Pennsylvania Power & Light. These questions might arise upon proof that the voluntary conveyance was made to avoid condemnation proceedings.

Plaintiffs, however, are not confined to proving an intentional avoidance of a condemnation proceeding by defendant to be entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the right-of-way. Neither are they relegated to exercise the option under the agreement to defeat the conveyance. They are entitled to damages upon proving that defendant breached its agreement. Pennsylvania Power & Light acquired the right-of-way without knowledge of plaintiffs’ interest. Obviously, [730]*730plaintiffs have no remedy against Pennsylvania Power & Light.

For a breach of contract, plaintiffs have the option to waive the tort and sue in assumpsit. The measure of damages is the price defendant received for the land wrongfully sold rather than its market value, since the suit in assumpsit is a tacit ratification of the sale: Rodgers v. Studebaker Sales Company, 102 Pa. Superior Ct. 402; Montour Furniture Co. v. Sakolsky, 125 Pa. Superior Ct. 512.

Wherefore, we enter the following

ORDER

Now, to wit, June 21, 1973, defendant’s preliminary objections are dismissed and defendant is directed to answer plaintiffs’ amended complaint within 20 days hereafter, on penalty of a default judgment being entered against it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Unit Vending Corp. v. Lacas
190 A.2d 298 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Robert F. Felte, Inc. v. White
302 A.2d 347 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Montour Furniture Co. v. Sakolsky
189 A. 761 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Rodgers v. Studebaker Sales Co.
157 A. 6 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Watson v. Zanotti Motor Co.
280 A.2d 670 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 Pa. D. & C.2d 723, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bollinger-v-palmerton-area-communities-endeavor-inc-pactcomplcarbon-1973.