Skip to main content
· 5/17/1911

Brown v. City of Scranton

Citations

  • 231 Pa. 593
  • 80 A. 1113
  • 1911 Pa. LEXIS 892

Syllabus

<p>Road law — Change of grade — Municipalities—Railroads—Bond' to indemnify city — Evidence—■Remarles of counsel.</p> <p>1. Where a city after having been indemnified against loss by a railroad company institutes proceedings to change the grade of a street in its own name only, and a landowner files a petition for the appointment of viewers to assess damages against the city and not against the railroad company, and the viewers award damages against the city which takes an appeal in its own name, the court of common pleas commits reversible error in directing that an issue shall be framed so as to include the railroad company as a party defendant with the city; and such error is not cured by the filing of a statement of claim, including the city and railroad company as parties defendant.</p> <p>2. In such a case the introduction of evidence tending to show the ultimate liability of the railroad company, such as the bond of indemnity, and argument of counsel that the city will suffer no loss because indemnified, are clearly erroneous.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Trial—Remark of counsel.</p> <p>3. On the trial of an issue between a property owner as plaintiff and a city and a railroad company as defendants, to ascertain damages for the change of grade of a street, a remark of plaintiff’s counsel made at the beginning of the trial that one of the defendant’s counsel represented “a good, healthy and robust corporation,” meaning the railroad company, is not ground for a continuance where it appears that the remark was in the nature of a pleasantry, and the jury are immediately instructed to disregard it.</p> <p>Road law — Evidence—Expert witness — Cross-examination—Values in neighborhood.</p> <p>4. An expert witness called in a proceeding to assess damages for the change of grade of a street cannot be asked on direct examination as to the values of other properties in the immediate neighborhood, although he may be cross-examined as to such values for the purpose of affectin

Judges: Elkin, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.