Borough of Hanover v. Hanover Sewer Co.

Citations

• 251 Pa. 95
• 96 A. 132
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 640

Syllabus

<p>Boroughs — Sewerage companies — Condemnation proceedings — Eminent domain — Damages—Evidence—Charge of court — New trial.</p> <p>1. In a proceeding to ascertain the value of a sewerage system taken over by a borough under authority of the Act of April 19, 1901, P. L. 82, which authorized a municipality to acquire the property of a sewer company upon payment of the actual value thereof at the time of taking, proof of the original cost of construction, while not controlling, is competent evidence to he considered as an element in ascertaining the present value.</p> <p>2. In such case where the defendant company, when called upon, failed to produce the original contract for construction showing the prices paid for the labor and material which went into the' work, an offer made on behalf of the borough to prove a copy of the contract by one of the engineers who was in active charge of the work of construction, to he followed by proof of the amount of labor, and quantities of materials furnished at the unit prices, so that the whole offer would have shown the cost of construction of the system, should have been allowed, where defendant’s only answer to the offer was the production of a paper setting forth an agreement which was made the basis of a greatly inflated issue o'f bonds and stock, but contained no evidence as to the cost of construction.</p> <p>3. The present value of the system, in such case, is the cost of reproduction less depreciation, and the exclusion of evidence that certain parts of the works required reconstruction or repair was erroneous.</p> <p>4. In such case evidence of the amount of the company’s indebtedness had no bearing upon the question of the value of the system, and should have been excluded.</p> <p>5. In such ease an affirmative answer to a point which permitted the jury to include in their estimate of the value of the plant, the amount of deficits or losses in the business was erroneous.</p> <p>6. In such proceeding the defendant compa