Home/Superior Court of Pennsylvania/Casey v. Canning

Casey v. Canning

43 Pa. Super. 31, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 8
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 20, 1910
DocketAppeal, No. 124
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 43 Pa. Super. 31 (Casey v. Canning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Casey v. Canning, 43 Pa. Super. 31, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 8 (Pa. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

Opinion by

Head, J.,

In 1891. there was conveyed to one William Easby_ a parcel of land in the city of Philadelphia, on the southwest corner of Spruce and Factory or Cypress streets. The property was irregular in shape, fronting about eighteen feet on Spruce street and extending of that width clear through the block to the other street mentioned. Along that street, however, it fronted about sixty feet, making the whole piece L shaped. That portion of the property which fronted only on Factory street had a depth of about thirty-five feet. Although all of the property mentioned was conveyed by a description using only outside lines, as if it were one parcel, it had in fact been previously subdivided into five separate lots on each of which a dwelling house was erected. There were thus four houses on shallow lots facing south on Factory street, whilst one lot of considerably more depth faced north on Spruce street. The accompanying plan will show this subdivision. At the rear of the Spruce street lot, located partly upon it and partly on the shallow lot immediately west of it, there had been constructed a large privy vault with a building over it divided by partition walls into four separate and distinct sections marked on the plan A, B, C and D. As the property was conveyed to Easby, section B opened into the Spruce street lot and was used by its occupant. Section D opened into the rear lot, 2301 Factory street, and was used by the tenants of the dwelling house thereon erected. With the two western sections, A and C, we have no concern. How long this structure had existed and been thus used, the record does not disclose.

With the ground thus subdivided and improved, and with its consequent use thus visible.and apparent, Easby in 1892 conveyed to John Canning, the defendant, the Spruce street lot. The deed described it as fronting eighteen feet on Spruce street and extending back of even width along Twenty-third street a distance of seventy feet. It is not denied that the description in this deed plainly includes the two eastern sections B and D of the outbuilding already referred to. The deed was duly recorded. In 1893 Easby conveyed to the [35]*35testator of the present plaintiff the remainder of the property. The description in that deed ju-st as clearly excludes the two sections of the outbuilding, although in point of fact no mention of said building or its use, either by way of grant or reservation, is contained in either deed.

[34]*34 bA0BQzehZY19IcBC7t2clDNOzf2PcvBvy93ZANGbDVe6

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

Related

Brabson v. School Directors of Fulton Township
88 Pa. D. & C. 577 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1954)
Clements v. Sannuti Et Ux.
51 A.2d 697 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1946)
Tirjon Et Ux. v. Matern
164 A. 76 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Mertens's Estate
18 Pa. D. & C. 310 (Erie County Orphans' Court, 1932)
Stein v. Bell Telephone Co.
151 A. 690 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Geissel Et Ux. v. Supplee
95 Pa. Super. 358 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Drum v. Dinkelacker
79 Pa. Super. 91 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Pa. Super. 31, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-canning-pasuperct-1910.