Orr v. Carnegie Natural Gas Co.

Citations

• 2 Pa. Super. 401
• 1896 Pa. Super. LEXIS 67

Syllabus

<p>Oil and gas lines — Evidence—Price demanded by owner.</p> <p>Under the general rule of evidence that everything said or done by a party, touching the matter in issue, may be presented in evidence against him, it is admissible to show in a damage ease for taking the right of way for a pipe line, the price, apart from any purpose of compromise, demanded by the plaintiff.</p> <p>Oil and gas lines — Evidence—Opinions as to value.</p> <p>Under the rules of evidence, governing the admission of opinions as to the value of property, which have been frequently stated by the Supreme Court and which are plain and not difficult of application, the following rulings of the trial judge were correct.</p> <p>1. The evidence was admissible where the witness testified that he knew the property for many years and that his judgment o£ its value was based on his knowledge of its conditions, quality and utility, and of such sales as were made of similar properties in the neighborhood.</p> <p>2. Evidence is properly rejected where the witness himself stated and his testimony showed that he was not acquainted with the value of land in the neighborhood of the farm in question.</p> <p>3. Where the witness had been rejected under the above (2d) ruling on a former day during the trial there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to permit him to be examined on the following day, no i’eason being given by the offer nor stated by the witness why he should be again examined.</p> <p>Practice, O. P. — Trial—Irrelevant suggestions to witness.</p> <p>An assignment of error will not be sustained based on permitting a witness to answer a question entirely proper in itself under directions to ‘ ‘ answer as indicated in the question ” although irrelevant suggestions had been made by counsel to the witness while in the witness box.</p> <p>It not being understood that approval is expressed of the method of conversation permitted and it being further indicated that the trial judge very properly might hav