Chester was wrong and they have to pay Mr. Shooster all back rent that he lost plus legal fees. He continued to clarify by saying, “It’s the city’s job is to give a permit and the request- er, Mr. Shooster, had every right to request a change to that permit. The city had no right to deny that change. After the ruling, the judge brought the opposing party up to his desk and said, Are you a Jew-hater? Once the Supreme Court ruling occurred Frank got the occupational license allowing the renters to move in, and everything seemed to be OK, at least for a couple of months. One of the renters was there only two months when his wife got him arrested. He got into trouble with another woman, and a lawyer advised him to leave everything alone, including not pay us the rent. His name was Schwester. So, the fellow runs away. So, we only got the payment from one store, but this store didn’t pay enough. Frank was only collecting half the money, which wasn’t enough money to carry the prop- erty. It took time to resolve. Finally, it was rent- ed and stayed that way for the rest of my life. The kindhearted Mrs. Savitsky asked me [Dora] a favor. She said, “My son-in-law just finished being a druggist. I would like to rent the store from you for him.” And that is exact- ly what happened. That property Frank developing was shaped like a triangle with commercial renters facing the main street. This left a reasonable piece of land behind the triangular building. That is where he decided to the dream home he wanted to give his wife, using the back wall of the existing building. It was a beautiful home decorated to perfec- tion, with highly lacquered cherry wood furni- ture and Harry’s painting of Boys in Hebrew School hanging prominently on the wall.
Justice Simpson of the State Supreme Court, yesterday handed down an opinion in the City vs. Frank Shooster matter, ruling in fa- vor of the latter in the matter pertaining to erection of buildings at the intersection of Twenty-fourth, Madison streets, and Sunny- side Avenue. Several months ago, Mr. Shooster, a resident of the West End, and owner of considerable real estate made an application for a permit to erect a structure at the site specified, the plans calling for stores and apartments, the buildings to be two stories in height. When the discovery was made that the builder was erecting one-story buildings, City Building Inspector J.A. Devlin halted the work, claim- ing it was not in compliance with the permit granted. Shooster took an appeal and the case was heard by the zoning board of appeals, which upheld the city government inspector. Shooster then took the case to the county courts and when the courts handed down a decision favoring the city, Shooster carried the case to the State Supreme Court. The decision by the latter, as announced from Harrisburg, yesterday, permits Shooster to occupy or rent the one-story buildings, giv- ing him the rights, if he so wishes in the fu- ture, to add another story to the structures. Shooster’s claim at the time the dispute with the city originated for not erecting a two-sto- ry structures, was that he was not in a posi- tion to finance the larger project.
The Seal of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Supreme Court Ruling in the Shooster Case Jan. 6th 1932
85
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease