McElheny v. McKeesport & Duquesne Bridge Co.

Citations

• 153 Pa. 108

Syllabus

<p>Eminent domain — Measure of damages in second condemnation proceedings — Benefits of defendant's structure — Bes judicata.</p> <p>Where, land has been condemned for the purposes of a bridge, and the damages paid to the owner, and subsequently, owing to change in plans, additional land of the same owner is condemned, the benefits, resulting to the owner’s property from the original construction of the bridge, cannot be considered in the adjustment of the damages in the second condemnation proceedings. In such case the special benefits from the construction of the bridge were settled in the original proceedings; as to them the former proceedings were res judicata; and in the second proceedings the inquiry must be limited to the damages sustained and the benefits conferred by the change in the plans, and the appropriation made necessary by such change.</p> <p>Practice, Supreme Courts — Error—Failure to print testimony.</p> <p>Where appellant has failed to print a witness’s testimony in chief, the Supreme Court will not consider an assignment of error based upon objections to questions complained of on the witness’s cross-examination.</p> <p>Evidence as to value of land — Competency of witness.</p> <p>In condemnation proceedings a witness who has known the property ten or fifteen years, and knew of sales of like property in the neighborhood, is competent to testify to the market value of the property condemned.</p>