*3 Before JACOBS, and HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
CERCONE, Judge:
This is an from a appeal Decree Nisi entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford in a County boundary dis- pute. Appellants’ exceptions to the decree were dismissed followed. We appeal and this on the court two by judges the lower court. the decree of affirm the chancel- by established that were The of facts finding Zingelman DeBow Margaret Appellant, are as follows. lor Baker, Mar- are sisters. Marie A. and (Margaret), appellee, DeBow, husband, owned Carl and her deceased Allotment via an as the Lakeland of land known parcel The land was mostly lots dated 1953. unrecorded plan lived in the farmland, her late husband appellant and in the barn behind antique shop an farmhouse and on garages other sheds and There were several their house. and her late husband In appellant their property. question land here west of the a new home built DeBow, in the death of Carl after moved there. It was Allotment the Lakeland concerning problem that any arose. and her Marie Baker appellees, testimony their them to leave
husband, asked states farmhouse on the Cleveland, and move to the Ohio home Based antique shop. operate Allotment and Lakeland inducement, prepared by property a deed to on this her sister and her Margaret conveying, (measured) the “walked off” allegedly Margaret husband. and asked if were to receive land Marie her husband to clear the footage they thought was sufficient if the land she Margaret opined located the land. the buildings, to include not sufficient measured off was Margaret The deed prepared “we can clear it later.” up *4 line of the proposed the east where point at “a began West Erie south line of intersects the Avenue Michigan and distance de- the directional and then follows Street” lot on the unrecorded an unnumbered matching scription street, which, Mar- unopened is an Michigan Avenue plan. admitted, exactly began know she did not The deed carried a considera- when she the deed. prepared value of $10.00, although the paid, tion of which was never $5,000. was the stated in the deed on in and George Based this Marie Baker conveyance reopened moved into the farmhouse and the antique shop George in the barn. in 1973 Baker Sometime upset became with her truck in the Margaret parking ga- rage which the Bakers claim is located on their property.1 There was a falling out between the families about this Margaret barn, time. the part informed Bakers that the garage, and sheds located on the land extended onto her adjacent By land. early Margaret’s informed attorney the Bakers the of part the barn which projected onto the appellant’s property would be forcibly removed unless the appellees $10,000 chose to purchase for sum of the strip of property which would clear the up location problem of the buildings. brought The Bakers then this suit enjoin Margaret from her parking truck the garage from off of cutting part the barn.
At trial, the testimony of two reputable surveyors disclosed that of all one shed garage and a portion of another shed and 13 of feet the barn extended onto Marga- ret’s The property. court, however, lower enjoined Marga- ret any from further trespass and ordered her to convey to the Bakers the strip of land which place would then on Baker in order to property, effectuate the original intent of the parties in their conveyance of 1971.
On appeal, major issue before us is whether the lower judge court committed reversible error in permitting of use parole evidence at the trial to determine the intent parties, even where the language of the deed clear its face. our issue, In review of this
“the findings a Chancellor have effect of a jury and, banc, verdict when affirmed en court will not be reversed if there is adequate evidence sustain them and if they are not premised on erroneous inferences and deductions or an error of law. . . . appeal, [O]n question is not whether the court appellate would have 1973, Margaret husband, In present Zingelman. married her Mr. remarriage family testified this somehow added to the dispute. *5 446 conclusion, whether the evidence is but
reached the same Bokoch conclusion. to the chancellor's support sufficient 899, (1966). Noon, 80, 85, 215 A.2d 901 420 Pa. sufficient standard, we conclude there is Based on this no re- the chancellor’s conclusions and evidence to support versible error was committed. argument legal princi stems from
Appellant's
is
language
when the
of a deed
cases that state
ples and
must
parties
the intent of the
be
clear and unambiguous,
Conveyance
the instrument. See
from
gleaned solely
DuBois,
161,
(1975).
To
461 Pa.
335 A.2d
Belonging
Land
descrip
is not included in the
building
Were a
of a
portion
from the deed that the
tion of the
and it is not clear
deed
to
building
pass,
meant for the entire
parties
descrip
that is covered in the
building passes
of the
portion
Carnucci,
(1966).
L.J. 39
tion. Nestico v.
39 Northumberland
us,
that since the de
argues
In the case before
appellant
clear,
were able to
surveyors
in the deed was
scription
of lots
plan
resort to the unrecorded
plot
despite
land
fur
and other monuments not in the deed.
there was no mention of
of the
argues
any
ther
that since
deed,
not have allowed
should
judge
Mar
inducement
parole
concerning
alleged
evidence
for her sister to move to
Goldsmith
Means,
Even can be as language deed construed precise face, being and clear its the cases make do exceptions encroachments are minor and where it would be illogical and to grantor unreasonable for have Baranko, conveyed only part buildings. Podlesny (1952). Here, Pa. D. & C. 281 were in the appellees living house antique and in the barn operating shop unhindered until the argument extremely occurred. It is unlikely barn, 13 feet of garage one of two sheds part other were deliberately excluded from the conveyance. all
Taking consideration, these facts into agree we must with the lower that the court intended convey house, barn, sufficient cover footage to and related buildings to her sister her husband at the time deed in original
Decree affirmed. JACOBS, Judge, concurs result. SPAETH, J., files a concurring opinion. HOFFMAN, J., former President
did not participate in consideration or of this decision case.
SPAETH, Judge, concurring: I submit the majority treats “ambiguity” and “mis- take” as synonyms. view, In my there was ambiguity because the had to resort surveyors using landmarks not deed, included and mistake because the parties to the deed thought that all the buildings included, were but they weren’t. On either or ground—ambiguity mistake—parol evidence was admissible. *7 SNYDER, Appellant,
Darlene M. COUNTY, PORT AUTHORITY Appellee. OF ALLEGHENY Superior Court
Argued April 1978.
Decided Oct.