Chambers v. South Chester Bor.

Citations

• 140 Pa. 510
• 21 A. 409
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 865

Syllabus

<p>1. In assessing damages for a change in the grade of a borough street, under the act of May 24, 1878, P. L. 129, the cost of filling the plaintiff’s lot and raising his buildings to bring them to the level of the new grade, cannot be allowed as part of the damages recoverable. The damage is to be measured by the change produced in the market value of the property.</p> <p>2. It is not error, therefore, to refuse an offer to prove the cost of such filling and raising, made for the purpose of showing the extent of the plaintiff’s damages. The courts, in recent years, have more and more closely held to the rule that witnesses must express their estimates of the money value of the injury, by contrasting the market values of the property before and after.</p> <p>3. And it is proper, in such a case, to refuse a point to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to damages for any loss in his business caused by increased difficulty of access to his property, and for the consequences of increased accumulations of water in his cellar by reason of difficulties connected with the drainage, occasioned by the change of grade.</p> <p>4. All such matters as, owing to the particular character of the improvement, may affect the convenient use and future enjoyment of the property, are proper matters for consideration; but they are to be considered in comparison with the advantages, and only as they affect the market value of the land: Pittsb. etc. R. Co. v. McCloskey, 110 Pa. 436.</p> <p>5. When error is assigned to the rejection of testimony, the offer refused must be embodied in the specification. A specification which does not contain the offer, nor show the sealing of an exception to its refusal, is not in compliance with the Rules of Court, even though it refer to the page of the paper-book where these appear.</p>