Frick v. Philadelphia

Citations

• 60 Pa. Super. 283
• 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 183

Syllabus

<p>Road law — Change of grade — Abolition of grade crossing — Depression of portion of street — Act of May 26, 1891, P. L. 117.</p> <p>The Act of May 26, 1891, P. L. 117, refers only to the assessment of damages for the opening or widening of a street, and does not refer to a change of grade of the street made subsequently' to the opening.</p> <p>Where a city in order to avoid a railroad grade-crossing depresses only that portion of the street actually opened and used by the public, an abutting owner is entitled to recover damages based only on the actual change in grade necessary for the improvement; and if the city thereafter changes the grade of the remainder of the street, such owner, or the party then having title, may recover additional damages, and the record of the first proceeding cannot be offered to bar such recovery.</p> <p>Road law — Change of grade — Evidence—Verdict.</p> <p>In a proceeding by a property owner against a city to recover damages for a change of grade of a street made to avoid a railroad grade-crossing, it is not error to permit witnesses to testify as to the number of trains which passed at grade over the street immediately before the time of the change of grade.</p> <p>In such a case the court commits no error in refusing to allow testimony offered by the plaintiff as to the vacancies of his houses, and the specific dropping of the rent.</p> <p>Road law — Verdict—Insufficiency of verdict — New trial.</p> <p>The appellate court will not reverse the action of the lower court in refusing to grant a new trial in a change of grade case, merely because the verdict was lower than the lowest estimate of any witness, where there was some evidence as to the cost of readjusting the properties to the changed conditions surrounding them, and the discrepancy in the verdict was not glaring.</p>