Coues v. Hallahan

209 Pa. 224 | Pa. | 1904

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restriction by ordinance did not absorb or supersede the restriction by the deed, for even if the ordinance should be repealed the covenant in the deed would still restrict the use of the five feet on the line of Chestnut street.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.