Legal Opinion

SCHULMAN v. Serrill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 3, 1968No. Appeal, 14PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Egberts,

This is an action instituted by the appellants seeking to declare null and void certain building restrictions which have been in effect since 1904. In that year E. Clarence Miller and his wife, Mary W. Miller conveyed a portion of a larger tract to William H. Millard. The deed contained the following language:

“That no building to be erected upon said premises shall ever be used or occupied as a hotel, tavern, drinking saloon, blacksmith, carpenter or wheelwright shop, steam mill, tannery, slaughter house, skin dressing establishment, livery stable, glue, soap,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Jones v. Park Lane for Convalescents, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Price v. AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  3. Johnson v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  4. Henry v. EvesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Katzman v. AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. DiFlorido v. DiFloridoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Altman v. RyanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  3. Burns v. BaumgardnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Gey v. BeckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Vernon Township Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. ConnorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API