Drexler v. Borough of Braddock

Citations

• 238 Pa. 376
• 86 A. 272
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 977

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Testimony—Property values — Eminent domain— Boroughs — Damages—Opinion as to value — Cross examination— Irrelevant facts.</p> <p>1. In a proceeding to recover damages for property taken by a borough for a public street under the power of eminent domain, a witness who testifies that he had resided in the particular county for twenty-nine years; had known the property in question all his life and managed it for a time; that he was familiar with the property and other properties in the same neighborhood, some of which he had sold and that he had a general, knowledge of the values of real estate in the neighborhood, is competent to testify, as to the before and after values of the property taken.</p> <p>2. Where in such a case a witness for the defendant has given his opinion as to the value, it is error for the court to allow the. plaintiff on cross examination to require him to state a higher value which he had given in testifying in court to another property which was so- unlike plaintiff’s and situated at such a distance therefrom that its value was not a relevant fact.</p> <p>Eminent domain — Opening of streets — Damages for delay— Charge.</p> <p>3. While a plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation for delay to which she has been unreasonably subjected in recovering damages for the taking of her property in the opening of a street, it is error for the court to instruct the jury that such damages can be recovered where there is no evidence that there was any unreasonable delay, and particularly to instruct the jury that “there has been no evidence of that fact except so far as the argument of counsel is concerned.” The jury, under this instruction, might have understood that they could consider the argument of counsel without evidence.</p>