Larkin v. Scranton City

Citations

• 162 Pa. 289
• 29 A. 910
• 1894 Pa. LEXIS 979

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Widening street — Eminent domain — Title—Charge of court — Measure of damages — Replacing building.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for land taken for the widening of a street, it is error to charge that the land is taken absolutely, that the title is taken from the owner and vested in the city for all time.</p> <p>In such a case, the measure of damage is the difference in market value between the plaintiff’s whole property before the taking and what remains to him after it. In this connection the jury have the right to consider the cost of replacing a building a portion of which is cut away; though they can only consider this as a part of and in clear and complete subordination to the general criterion above stated. To charge that such consideration may be entirely independent of the question of the value of the property taken, is error.</p> <p>Proceedings for appointment of viewers, etc. — Irregularities—Waiver— Jurisdiction.</p> <p>A city had notice of the appointment of viewers for the assessment of damages for the widening of a Street, of their report, and of the plaintiff’s appeal; and when the issue was framed on the appeal, pleaded to it without objection. Reid that, the subject-matter being one within the general jurisdiction of the court, the parties by their conduct had waived the right to object that the5' were not properly before it, and the city could not, on the trial of the issue, raise the question of jurisdiction.</p>