Jones v. Borough of Bangor

Citations

• 144 Pa. 638
• 23 A. 252
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 751

Syllabus

<p>1. A landowner, who lays out a street through his property and dedicates it to public use, is not precluded thereby from recovering damages fora change in its grade made by the municipal authorities; at least, where the change is not ordained until several years after the dedication, and the grading is an act separate and distinct from the opening of the street.</p> <p>2. The right of action, under § 8, article XVI. of the constitution, and the act of May 24, 1878, P. L. 129, for damages caused by changing the grade of a street, accrues when the work is done on the ground; it is the physical, not the paper change, which confers it. Wherefore, the damages accruing from a change of grade belong to him who is the owner of the abutting property at the time of the actual grading.</p> <p>3. When a person becomes the owner of property, after the municipality has ordained a change in the grade of a street upon which it fronts, the fact that his purchase is made with the knowledge and understanding, on the part of both vendor and vendee, that the street will be made eventually to conform to the new grade, does not operate to relieve the municipality from liability for damages.</p> <p>4. The consent which will relieve a municipality from its constitutional obligation to make just compensation to the owner for an injury to his property, must be something more than non-resistance. It should be given to the municipality by the party interested; and in express terms, or by necessary implication, it should embrace a release of the right to damages: Per Mr. Justice McCollum.</p> <p>5. A lotowner, who joins in a request tó the authorities of a borough to grade a street, is not thereby estopped from claiming compensation for an injury to Ms property done by the grading. The distinction between such an act, and the acts which were held to create an estoppel in Bidwell v. Pittsburgh, 85 Pa. 412; Dewhurst v. Allegheny City, 95 Pa. 437; and MeKnight v. Pittsburgh, 91 Pa. 273, is obvio