Dieterich v. Philadelphia
Citations
- 248 Pa. 586
- 94 A. 274
Syllabus
<p>Eminent domain — Evidence—Relevancy.</p> <p>1. While it is true that every part of a scheme of improvement undertaken hy a municipality which would effect the value of land through which a street has been opened, is proper for consideration in determining the damages, before such schemes of1 improvement may be considered, it must appear that they were authorized by the municipality at the time of the trial.</p> <p>2. Where on the trial of an appeal from an award of viewers for land taken by a city for a street, expert witnesses for plaintiff testified on cross-examination that in forming their opinion they had considered the fact that the street would not be opened at both ends but that one end was closed by a railroad embankment, the exclusion of evidence offered by defendant to prove that plans had been made for the construction of a bridge under the railroad so that the street could be opened at that point was not error, in the absence of evidence that the city had authorized the building of the bridge or that the proper authorities of the municipality were finally committed to the improvement.</p> <p>3. In such case the exclusion of a deed conveying the property to a predecessor in title of plaintiff which was delivered a year before the taking but which was offered as part of a “straw transaction” wherein plaintiff was alleged to be the actual grantee, to px'ove the price paid by plaintiff, was not error, where there was no proof that the deed was part of such straw transaction or that the grantee therein was not a bona fide purchaser, or that the price therein named represented the fair market value of the entire tract at the time of talcing, and the defendant was in no way harmed by such exclusion, where he succeeded in eliciting the same information as the deed would have given by the cross-examination of an expert witness for plaintiff.</p> <p>4. In such case the exclusion of deeds for the remainder of the land delivered after the taking and offered for
Judges: Brown, Elkin, Frazer, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.