Marine Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh, McKeesport & Youghiogheny Railroad

Citations

• 246 Pa. 478
• 92 A. 688
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 542

Syllabus

<p>Railroad companies — Eminent domain — Damages—Measure of damages — Verdict—Proper verdict — New trial — After-discovered evidence — Points for charge.</p> <p>1. The damages sustained by one a part of whose land has been appropriated in eminent domain proceedings is the difference in the market value of the land before and after the taking as affected thereby:</p> <p>2. On ascertaining the value of the whole tract prior to the taking, it is the duty of the jury to consider not only its present use and condition but any use to which it was then adapted or any prospective use which at the time gave it a present value, excluding, however, any use which was merely speculative and to which it, could not reasonably be anticipated the land would in future be applied.</p> <p>3. In a proceeding for - the assessment of damages resulting from the appropriation of plaintiff’s land by a railroad company where there was evidence that the land had a special value as a desirable site for a manufactory, blast furnace with accompanying equipment, or a coke plant with houses for the employees, because it was on a river and had a good harbor for boat landings and because of the facilities for rail transportation on both sides of the river, and where expert witnesses testifying for plaintiff stated that they were familiar with the values of property in the valley for the special uses to which the land was adapted and fixed the damages as ranging from $172,000 to $380,000 a verdict for plaintiff for $72,918 was not excessive although expert witnesses testifying for defendant estimated the damages as from $5,150 to $11,215, the credibility of the witnesses being for the jury.</p> <p>4. In such case, the court made no error in refusing a new trial where in support of the motion, after-discovered evidence was alleged, consisting of affidavits made by two of plaintiff’s' officers appended to reports made to the auditor general which averred that the assessed value of the capital stock of p