186 A. 249 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1936
Argued April 24, 1936.
The plaintiff in an ejectment suit, as in other cases, need not go further than to make out a prima facie case. But, if his proof discloses something which necessarily defeats his case, then there is no alternative for the court but to enter a nonsuit: Dunn et al. v. Milanovich,
In this case, the evidence offered by the plaintiffs was clearly insufficient to establish title to the ground in dispute. The learned court below therefore very properly entered a nonsuit.
The strip of ground in dispute is 15 1/2 feet in length and a varying width of from 11 to 7 1/4 inches. The plaintiffs obtained title on June 30, 1921, to a lot of ground, 60 feet in width and 100 feet in depth, upon which was erected a block of three 2-story dwelling houses, separated by party walls, and known as 532, 534, and 536 Aspen Street. In the rear of each house was an intervening space. The plaintiffs, by deed, dated August 2, 1921, conveyed to the defendant a portion of *236 the premises, described as follows: "All that certain lot or piece of ground situate, lying and being within the Eighth Ward in and of the City of Pittsburgh, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, . . . . . . fronting southeastwardly and abutting twenty-one (21) feet on the northwestwardly side of Aspen Street; whence extending, at right angles, directly back or northwestwardly, preserving such frontage-width evenly throughout a hundred (100) feet. . . . . . On the lot hereby conveyed is a third (1/3) of a two (2)-story and mansard frame dwelling house — this portion whereof is municipally numbered Five Hundred and Thirty-six (536) Aspen Street."
Some time during 1925, the defendant built an addition to the rear of his dwelling house. The plaintiffs caused a survey to be made later, which they allege disclosed that the defendant in the construction of improvements encroached upon their property known as 534 Aspen Street. It is admitted by the appellants that the dividing wall between these properties must be construed to be the eastern line of the appellee's property, notwithstanding the fact that the description in the deed from the appellants did not call for a party wall as a boundary, or that the distance stated did not extend thereto. But the appellants contend that the center line of the dividing wall is the true line only so far as the wall extends and should not be projected to the full depth of the lot.
It will be noted that the conveyance expressly states that the lot maintains an even width throughout, but we are not concerned with anything more than the land described in the writ. The appellants cannot disregard the plain language they used in their deed.
In Dunlap v. Reardon,
In Medara v. DuBois,
It follows from what we have said that there is no merit in the assignments of error.
Judgment affirmed.