History
  • No items yet
midpage
Coues v. Hallahan
209 Pa. 224
Pa.
1904
Check Treatment
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restriction by ordinance did not absorb or supersede the restriction by the deed, for even if the ordinance should be repealed the covenant in the deed would still restrict the use of the five feet on the line of Chestnut street.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.

Case Details

Case Name: Coues v. Hallahan
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: May 16, 1904
Citation: 209 Pa. 224
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 65
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.