From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lankenau Hospital v. Madway

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 19, 1963
189 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1963)

Opinion

January 18, 1963.

March 19, 1963.

Practice — Equity — Complaint — Insufficiency — Misrepresentations not causing damages.

In this action in equity to enjoin the erection of an apartment building 11 stories high, in which plaintiff alleged that it was induced by defendants not to object to a zoning down-grading by misrepresentations that defendants sought merely to erect apartment buildings 5 stories high, but plaintiff did not allege fraud or that it had expended any money on the faith of such misrepresentations or that it had suffered any irreparable damage, it was Held that the court below had properly dismissed the complaint on preliminary objections.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 115, Jan. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 62-5015, in equity, in case of The Lankenau Hospital v. Harry K. Madway and Madway Engineers and Constructors. Order affirmed; reargument refused April 16, 1963.

Equity.

Defendants' preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer sustained and complaint dismissed, opinion by FORREST, P. J. Plaintiff appealed.

John R. McConnell, with him Anthony H. Whitaker, and Morgan, Lewis Bockius, for appellant.

Victor J. Roberts, with him Gerald Broker, Marvin Comisky, William B. Rudenko, and High, Swartz, Roberts Seidel, and Blank, Rudenko, Klaus Rome, for appellees.


Appellant filed a complaint asking an injunction against the erection of an apartment building 11 stories high, based upon an alleged promissory estoppel. Appellant alleged that it was induced by appellees not to object to or protest a down-grading of the nearby neighborhood, i.e., a rezoning from R-3 to R-7 to permit the erection of two to four 5-story apartment buildings by the representations of appellees that they sought merely to erect two or four apartment buildings five stories high. It further alleged that the same misrepresentations were made to the Township Commissioners, although they were not joined as parties nor was any relief sought against them.

Thereafter the Township Commissioners passed an ordinance which allowed appellees (and other property owners) to erect apartment buildings eleven stories high. Appellant did not allege fraud, or that it had expended any money on the faith of appellees' misrepresentations, or that it had suffered any irreparable damage. The lower Court sustained preliminary objections and dismissed appellant's complaint.

Order affirmed; each party to pay own costs.


Summaries of

Lankenau Hospital v. Madway

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 19, 1963
189 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1963)
Case details for

Lankenau Hospital v. Madway

Case Details

Full title:Lankenau Hospital, Appellant, v. Madway

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 19, 1963

Citations

189 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1963)
189 A.2d 592

Citing Cases

Widener Univ. v. F.S. James Co.

To seek relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, plaintiffs must plead all facts necessary to…

Harkins v. Zamichieli

It may be true that if appellees had not obtained the variance they might not have purchased the Skiltons'…