Hall v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

Citations

• 262 Pa. 292
• 105 A. 98
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 642

Syllabus

<p>Eminent domain — Evidence—Incompetent evidence — Incompetent witnesses — Relevant evidence — Erroneous exclusion.</p> <p>1. In. eminent domain proceedings to assess damages to a tract of land caused by the condemnation of a part thereof for railroad purposes, a witness is incompetent to testify as to the value of the land before and after the taking, where he admits that in forming his opinion, he considered that the land could have been divided into separate lots desirable for sites for summer residences and the worth of the separate lots, but where he did not state that there was any market or present demand for sites for summer residences, or any circumstances from which a present market or demand could be reasonably inferred.</p> <p>2. While the general advantage, resulting as well to the public as to the property which is the subject of the condemnation, is not to be considered in estimating the benefits, if any, to that property, yet any special advantage arising thereout affecting an enhancement in value of the land out of which the appropriation has been made, and in which the other lands in the neighborhood does not share, may be considered; it is error, therefore, to exclude evidence to the effect that by reason of the construction of a railroad station near plaintiff’s property as a part of the general plan of railroad improvement in the neighborhood, the damages which plaintiff would otherwise have sustained by reason of the condemnation were reduced.</p>