In re Change of Grade & Grading, Paving & Curbing of South Beatty Street

Citations

• 75 Pa. Super. 145
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 236

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities-^Streets — Paving^Assessment—Width of street —Power to widen.</p> <p>A city street was originally dedicated by a property owner at a width of thirty feet. Subsequently the city sought to increase the width by an ordinance locating the street at a width of forty feet. This ordinance was held to be invalid as an attempt to widen an established street without proceeding in the manner required by the statutes. Sometime thereafter the city paved the street at the original width of thirty feet, as dedicated.</p> <p>In a proceeding before the board.of viewers to assess costs, damages and expenses, the board assessed the property of an abutting property owner for benefits. Exceptions were filed to the report of viewers, on the ground that the legal width of the gtreet was forty feet, and that the city had no right to improve it at a width of thirty feet. Held, that the ordinance widening the street having been declared invalid, that the original width as dedicated was the legal width, and that the city acted within its authority, and had the right to have benefits of the improvement assessed against the abutting property owners.</p> <p>Evidence — Plan—Best evidence.</p> <p>In a proceeding before viewers involving the dedication of a street, the original plan is the best evidence and should be offered, instead of allowing the city engineer to testify as to the contents of the plan. But where the appellant has submitted a point founded on the testimony of the engineer and accepted his testimony as true, he cannot afterwards complain of the failure to offer the plan in evidence.</p>