Messinger v. Washington Township

8 Citing cases

  1. Frasca v. Wallenpaupack Lake Estates

    3:22cv2022 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2024)

    He did not, however, build permanent improvements on the land, i.e., the slip, as contemplated by the irrevocable license cases in Pennsylvania. See Messinger v. Washington Twp., 137 A.2d 890, 893 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)(stormwater drains); Harkins, 405 A.2d 495, 498 (driveway); Dailey's Chevrolet, Inc, v. Worster Realties, Inc., 458 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)(improvements to land used for ingress and egress and purchase of nearby properties); Morning Call, Inc., 761 A.2d at 144 (installation of telephone equipment on a building).

  2. Southern Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Mobile County

    161 So. 2d 805 (Ala. 1964)   Cited 8 times

    It is undisputed that the fill areas constitute a part of the original plans of the highway and were an integral part of it. A oral release acted upon by the County of Mobile and the spending of public funds in reliance upon said oral promise is effective, Markiewicus v. Town of Methuen, 300 Mass. 560, 16 N.E.2d 32; Messinger v. Township of Washington, 185 Pa. Super. 554, 137 A.2d 890; and the landowner is estopped from claiming damages, if any, resulting from the deposit of fill material. Hamrick v. City of Albertville, 238 Ala. 82, 189 So. 545; Town of New Decatur v. Scharfenberg, 147 Ala. 367, 41 So. 1025; Forney v. Calhoun County, 84 Ala. 215, 4 So. 153; Smith v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co., 5 Cir., 215 F.2d 365.

  3. Kovach v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Pennsylvania

    340 Pa. Super. 144 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985)   Cited 33 times

    Harkins v. Zamichieli, supra, 266 Pa. Super. at 407-08, 405 A.2d at 498. Messinger v.Washington Township, 185 Pa. Super. 554, 137 A.2d 890 (1958). The first issue appellants present for our review concerns a claim which was not raised in the trial court.

  4. Dailey's Chev. v. Worster Realities, Inc.

    312 Pa. Super. 275 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)   Cited 10 times

    Where this permission has led the party to whom it has been given, to treat his own property in a way in which he would not otherwise have treated it, as by the erection or construction of permanent improvements thereon, it cannot be recalled to his detriment." See also Bieber v.Zellner, 421 Pa. 444, 220 A.2d 17 (1966); Thompson v.McElarney, 82 Pa. 174, (1876); Messinger v.Washington Township, 185 Pa. Super. 554, 137 A.2d 890 (1958).Harkins v. Zamichieli, 266 Pa. Super. 401, 406, 405 A.2d 495, 498 (1979).

  5. Zvonik v. Zvonik

    291 Pa. Super. 309 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)   Cited 41 times
    Finding that party to a contract who agreed to pay "fair value" for services could not later complain when final bill was higher than expected

    Despite his expenditure of time and money ($8,520.00) to improve substantially the condition of the premises, see Messinger v. Washington Township, 185 Pa. Super. 554, 137 A.2d 890 (1958), the mother did not comply with her part of the bargain. (N.T. 2/6/79, at 64) Instead, she conveyed the property to Pauline for one dollar, who in turn transferred it to her son, Paul, for the same amount.

  6. Harkins v. Zamichieli

    266 Pa. Super. 401 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979)   Cited 26 times
    In Harkins v. Zamichieli, 266 Pa. Super. 401, 405 A.2d 495, 499 (1979), we concluded that even when a complaint is deficient, amendment and not dismissal, is the appropriate remedy. If a demurrer is sustained, `the right to amend should not be withheld where there is some reasonable possibility that amendment can be accomplished successfully.' Otto v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 482 Pa. 202, 393 A.2d 450 (1978), vacating 241 Pa. Super. 423, 361 A.2d 815.

    Where this permission has led the party to whom it has been given, to treat his own property in a way in which he would not otherwise have treated it, as by the erection or construction of permanent improvements thereon, it cannot be recalled to his detriment." See also Bieber v. Zellner, 421 Pa. 444, 220 A.2d 17 (1966); Thompson v. McElarney, 82 Pa. 174 (1876); Messinger v. Washington Township, 185 Pa. Super. 554, 137 A.2d 890 (1958). In the present case, appellants allege that in return for parking privileges, they permitted the Skiltons to transplant their shrubbery hedge and extend the driveway onto their land. Contrary to the lower court's belief, this permission constituted an expenditure that may support an irrevocable license. It is immaterial that the expenditure was not in the form of money or labor. Appellants gave the Skiltons property in return for the license.

  7. Hennebont Co. v. Kroger Co.

    221 Pa. Super. 65 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that, in Pennsylvania, doctrine of estoppel by deed precludes one who leases property which he does not own, but of which he later acquires ownership, from denying the lease on the basis he did not have ownership at the time the lease was executed

    However, whether it was a license, a license coupled with an interest, thus constituting a right, or an easement expressed or by equitable estoppel, it was never revoked by the Frys whether they were licensors or grantors. See Rerick v. Kern, 14 S. R. 267, 16 Am. Dec. 497 (1826); Horatio S. Pierce v. JohnCleland, 133 Pa. 189, 19 A. 352 (1890); Messinger v. WashingtonTownship, 185 Pa. Super. 554, 137 A.2d 890 (1958); 25 Am. Jur. Easements Licenses, Sec. 123 et seq., as to variations in licenses and easements. The crucial issue in this case is whether Bally could terminate or nullify the parking easement provision in its lease to Kroger by failing to exercise its option to purchase the property and instead assigning that right to a third party, Hennebont, which had full knowledge of the facts, i.e., that Kroger had made the improvements aforementioned and would be deprived of an important adjunct to its grocery business, the denial of parking facilities to its customers.

  8. Costopoulos v. Carlisle Z.H.B

    351 A.2d 318 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    When an irrevocable parol license is thus established, the licensor is estopped from interfering with its enjoyment. Leininger v. Goodman, 277 Pa. 75, 120 A. 763 (1923); Thompson v. McElarney, 82 Pa. 174 (1876); Messinger v. Washington Township, 185 Pa. Super. 554, 137 A.2d 890 (1958); Hanna v. Hanna, 57 Pa. D. C.2d 80 (1972); and Cherry v. Harrison, 55 Pa. D. C.2d 230 (1971). In the instant case the Borough, by the necessary implication of its own argument, has granted a license in reliance on which the appellants have expended considerable sums of money.