171 A. 598 | Pa. | 1934
Argued January 15, 1934. In this action of ejectment, after verdict for defendants conditioned on paying $800 to plaintiff, the court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment n. o. v. Defendants have appealed.
Plaintiff made out a clear record title. Defendants, while conceding that title, stood on alleged oral agreements of sale to them, made by plaintiff's predecessor in title, and reaffirmed by plaintiff; they contend that, while the agreements were oral, they made improvements on the land, in circumstances which would entitle them to specific performance and, therefore, constitute a defense to the ejectment. In that light, we examine the evidence, and, as the defense is equitable, defendants must show a case in which, if they were plaintiffs, a chancellor would decree specific performance: cf. Coates v. Cotteral,
May 1, 1920, a tract of land, of which that in suit is part, was owned by a Mrs. Beitler. On that date, she demised to defendants a certain tract of vacant land, 50 feet square, for a term of 5 years, at a rental of $375, payable $37.50 half-yearly. The lease provided that either party might terminate at the end of the term by three months' notice, but, in default of such notice, the term should continue "for a further period of one year and so on from year to year unless or until terminated by either party hereto giving to the other thirty days notice for removal previous to the expiration of the then current term." At the expiration of the five-year-term, defendants continued in possession under the lease, but, by supplementary agreement then made, the area was increased to a tract eighty feet square. *456
In 1926, Mrs. Beitler sold her entire tract, including the leased land, to plaintiff. Defendants attorned to plaintiff and paid rent to her until November 1, 1929. In 1930, defendants demanded a conveyance of the leased tract, basing their demand on circumstances, now to be stated, obviously insufficient to justify a chancellor in decreeing specific performance. It is not clear there was an agreement and in that attempted to be shown there was no certainty as to the tract to be conveyed, or when it should be conveyed, or the price to be paid. See Hart v. Carroll,
Mr. MacGregor, one of defendants, testified that during the negotiations for the lease in 1920, "Mrs. Beitler said that I could buy the ground later on and we could come to a reasonable price. When I mentioned price she did not seem to be interested at that time. I don't think that she was in a position to sell and I was not in a position to buy at that time. Q. Did she say anything as to price? A. No price quoted. Q. Was there anything else? A. Only that it would be a reasonable figure and satisfactory to both sides." Cf. Gianni v. Russell,
The other defendant, Mrs. MacGregor, testified that "Mrs. Beitler said that we would be able to buy the ground if she at any time wanted to sell." "Q. Did she make any reference to any particular piece of ground? A. She always referred, she wanted to sell the entire piece. She never wanted to consider splitting it up."
While both Mrs. Beitler and the plaintiff deny the conversation said to have been made by or on behalf of either (See Brawdy v. Brawdy,
Judgment affirmed. *458
