Brady Land Co. v. Bell Telephone Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Brady Land Co. v. Bell Telephone Co.

410 Pa. 636

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 19, 1963

DocketAppeal, No. 207

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 410 Pa. 636 (Brady Land Co. v. Bell Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brady Land Co. v. Bell Telephone Co., 410 Pa. 636 (Pa. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from a judgment of compulsory nonsuit in an action of assumpsit on two alternative counts.

Appellant, the owner of a building* entered into negotiations with agents of appellee for lease of the building to appellee for a ten year term. The negotiations culminated in appellee’s agents submitting a lease which appellant signed and returned to appellee. Appellee never signed the lease and some months later indicated that it would not enter into the lease. Appellant sued in assumpsit on two counts. The first count sought the difference between the rent stipulated in the proposed lease and the rent for which appellant leased the premises after appellee’s alleged default. [638]*638The second count sought in the alternative, expenses for remodeling the building, legal fees and rent lost while appellant held the premises for appellee, allegedly at appellee’s request. The court below granted a compulsory nonsuit at the close of appellant’s case.

The court below held that no lease existed because there was no evidence that defendanfs (appellee’s) agent was authorized in writing to enter into a lease. The Landlord and Tenant Act of April 6, 1951, P. L. 69, 68 P.S. §250.202 provides as follows: “Real property, including any personal property thereon, may be leased for a term of more than three years by a landlord to a tenant or by their respective agents lawfully authorized in writing. Any such lease must be in writing and signed by the parties making or creating the same, otherwise it shall have the force and effect of a lease at will only and shall not be given any greater force or effect either in law or equity, notwithstanding any consideration therefor, unless the tenancy has continued for more than one year and the landlord and tenant have recognized its rightful existence by claiming and admitting liability for the rent, in which case the tenancy shall become one from year to year.” (Emphasis supplied).

This section bars the appellant from recovery on the proposed lease and therefore the second count fails.

The court properly granted the compulsory non-suit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from a judgment of compulsory nonsuit in an action of assumpsit on two alternative counts.

Appellant, the owner of a building* entered into negotiations with agents of appellee for lease of the building to appellee for a ten year term. The negotiations culminated in appellee’s agents submitting a lease which appellant signed and returned to appellee. Appellee never signed the lease and some months later indicated that it would not enter into the lease. Appellant sued in assumpsit on two counts. The first count sought the difference between the rent stipulated in the proposed lease and the rent for which appellant leased the premises after appellee’s alleged default. [638]*638The second count sought in the alternative, expenses for remodeling the building, legal fees and rent lost while appellant held the premises for appellee, allegedly at appellee’s request. The court below granted a compulsory nonsuit at the close of appellant’s case.

The court below held that no lease existed because there was no evidence that defendanfs (appellee’s) agent was authorized in writing to enter into a lease. The Landlord and Tenant Act of April 6, 1951, P. L. 69, 68 P.S. §250.202 provides as follows: “Real property, including any personal property thereon, may be leased for a term of more than three years by a landlord to a tenant or by their respective agents lawfully authorized in writing. Any such lease must be in writing and signed by the parties making or creating the same, otherwise it shall have the force and effect of a lease at will only and shall not be given any greater force or effect either in law or equity, notwithstanding any consideration therefor, unless the tenancy has continued for more than one year and the landlord and tenant have recognized its rightful existence by claiming and admitting liability for the rent, in which case the tenancy shall become one from year to year.” (Emphasis supplied).

This section bars the appellant from recovery on the proposed lease and therefore the second count fails.

The court properly granted the compulsory non-suit.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

410 Pa. 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-land-co-v-bell-telephone-co-pa-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack