Hirsch v. North Braddock Borough

Citations

• 252 Pa. 22
• 97 A. 113
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 562

Syllabus

<p>Eminent domain — Municipalities—Change of grade — Evidence —Irrelevant evidence — Damages—Compensation for delay in payment.</p> <p>1. At the trial of an appeal from an award of viewers in change of grade proceedings, the admission in evidence of a prior ordinance establishing a paper grade, but under which no work was done, and which was repealed by another ordinance establishing a new grade, under which the work was done, was reversible error, particularly where such ordinance was offered not only for the purpose of showing that a change of grade had been made, but also for the purpose of showing the difference in elevation between the grades of the earlier and later ordinance, as the jury might have thereby been led to infer that the borough was juggling with the grade in front of plaintiff’s property and that this was a wrong done plaintiff.</p> <p>2. In such case the court did not err in charging that the jury could add to the damages as compensation for delay a sum- not exceeding six per cent, per annum from the date of the physical change of grade.</p> <p>Hoffman v. Philadelphia, 250 Pa. 1, followed.</p>