Albertson v. City of Philadelphia

Citations

• 185 Pa. 223
• 39 A. 887
• 1898 Pa. LEXIS 696

Syllabus

<p>Hoad law — Evidence — Opening street — dost of future improvements — Oross-examination of witness.</p> <p>The cost of future municipal improvements cannot be shown for the purpose of establishing an independent item of claim for damages caused by the opening of a street.</p> <p>In an appeal from the award of a jury of view for damages for the opening of a street, a witness called by the city testified as an expert to the value of the land before and after the street was opened, and, on cross-examination, gave an estimate of the value of each piece of land after the street was opened, and stated that his estimate did not include the cost of street improvements. He was then asked, in further cross-examination: “ What would the street improvements cost?” When the question was objected to, no offer was made to sustain it, and it was not made to appear that it was asked for the purpose of testing the correctness of the witness’s estimate or to show that he had not taken into consideration future improvements. Held, that as presumably it w'as an attempt to show the cost as an independent item of damages, there was no error in sustaining the objection to the question.</p>