Machesney v. Pittsburgh & Connellsville Railroad

Citations

• 252 Pa. 225
• 97 A. 397
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 598

Syllabus

<p>Eminent domain — Railroads—Improvements after talcing — Evidence — Damages—Witnesses—Experts—Competency—New trial.</p> <p>1. On appeal from an award of viewers in condemnation proceedings, tbe admission of evidence to show that subsequent to the appropriation, improvements had been made in the vicinity which tended to enhance the value of the land taken, as well as the admission of evidence that at the time of the trial, there was no other available real estate in the neighborhood to be obtained by defendant, was reversible error, as it may have influenced the jury to award damages on the theory that had defendant not taken plaintiff’s land, plaintiff would have gained the benefit of the improved conditions.</p> <p>2. In such ease the court made no err'or in permitting an expert witness to be questioned as to whether he had not acted for the railroad company in acquiring a large amount of property in the neighborhood prior to the date of the appropriation, as such question did not necessarily indicate, as contended by the defendant, that the witness was being interrogated about acquiring property for a “special purpose,” nor did the court abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the witness to be questioned on cross-examination, whether certain sales, which he had referred to as having taken place in the immediate vicinity, were not at a much less figure than the valuation placed by him on plaintiff’s property.</p> <p>3. In such case, it was error to permit an expert witness called for plaintiff to testify, over defendant’s objection, concerning the value of plaintiff’s property, where it appeared that the witness did not have such a knowledge of the holding or selling values of the properties in the neighborhood as the subject was reasonably susceptible of.</p>