Barnett v. Yeadon Borough

Citations

• 37 Pa. Super. 97
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 247

Syllabus

<p>Road law — Borough—Discretion of borough authorities — Plan—Evidence — Damages.</p> <p>Where borough authorities are vested with a discretion to open and grade a street, and it appears that the street was regularly opened and graded, an abutting owner has no standing to inquire what influences lead the borough authorities to open and grade the street.</p> <p>In a proceeding against a borough for damages for opening and grading a street, where the plaintiff has made a claim to extravagant damages based upon the cost of filling up the land to the grade of the street, it is proper to permit the borough to show that the filling up would be a useless expenditure of money, and that the part of the property which the witnesses of the plaintiff thought ought to be filled up at an enormous expense was not worth as much as before the grading of the street, and would not be worth as much after the filling as the witnesses for the plaintiff had said it would cost to fill.</p> <p>In a road case for damages against a borough where it appears that plaintiff's predecessor in title had laid out a plan of lots and streets, and had sold lots in accordance with the plan, and that the street in question was on the plan, it is not error to admit the plan in evidence.</p> <p>In such a case where it appears that the opening and grading of a street had resulted in two fragments of a highway with a chasm over twenty feet deep through which a railroad passed, separating them, it is reversible error for the court to charge that “in considering damages, the jury must take into consideration the benefits to be derived from the opening of a street as a public highway, and thereby making communication practicable between the parts divided by the railroad.”</p>