Gaughan v. Scranton City
Citations
- 266 Pa. 586
- 109 A. 682
- 1920 Pa. LEXIS 619
Syllabus
<p>Road law — Change of grade — Pavement—Damages—Benefits— Assessments — Foot front rule — Appeal—Act of May 15, 1918, P. L. 215.</p> <p>1. Where a municipality cuts down the grade of a road, the owner of the abutting property is entitled to damages measured by the difference in the market value of the property before and after the improvement; ‘but the municipality is entitled to the benefits special to abutting properly and no less so because all other properties along the line of the improvement may be similarly situated.</p> <p>2. The abutting owner, however, is not to he charged with any general indefinite appreciation of the value of the property in the neighborhood, as distinguished from special benefits to his and other abutting properties resulting from the improvement.</p> <p>3. The development of an. important avenue is of common advantage to all property in the vicinity, whether located thereon or not, and this the .abutting owner is entitled to share with his neighbors; hence, in passing upon the question of the market value of abutting property, as affected by the improvement, the jury should not charge the owner with any general appreciation of land values in the locality thus indirectly resulting from the development of the avenue and common to nonabutting as well as abutting property. However, the difference between the two because of the direct contact of the latter with the improvement is marked, and must be considered by the jury, and the city given credit for the special advantages thereby accruing, although like advantages also accrue to other properties upon the line of the improvement.</p> <p>4. An appeal from an award of viewers brings up the whole case, including both damages and benefits, as it is from the net amount only (Act of May 15, 1913, F. L. 215), and the proceedings in the common pleas are de novo.</p> <p>5. So far as relates to the pavement, in a change of grade proceeding in a city, the benefit conferred thereby is its cost as p
Judges: Brown, Frazer, Izisker, Kephart, Mosci, Simpson, Stewart, Walling
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.