Coues v. Hallahan

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Coues v. Hallahan

58 A. 158, 209 Pa. 224, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 593

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 16, 1904

DocketAppeal, No. 65

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 58 A. 158 (Coues v. Hallahan) 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

Coues v. Hallahan, 58 A. 158, 209 Pa. 224, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 593 (Pa. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cxjeiam,

There were two restrictions upon the property, either of which would bar a recovery ■ by the plaintiffs. The restriction by ordinance did not absorb or supersede the restriction by the deed, for even if the ordinance should be repealed the covenant in the deed would still restrict the use of the five feet on the line of Chestnut street. .The effect of the ordinance is well stated by the learned judge below, and on his opinion the order discharging the rule for judgment is affirmed.

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

Pee Cxjeiam,

There were two restrictions upon the property, either of which would bar a recovery ■ by the plaintiffs. The restriction by ordinance did not absorb or supersede the restriction by the deed, for even if the ordinance should be repealed the covenant in the deed would still restrict the use of the five feet on the line of Chestnut street. .The effect of the ordinance is well stated by the learned judge below, and on his opinion the order discharging the rule for judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A. 158, 209 Pa. 224, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coues-v-hallahan-pa-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack