Penn. Schuyl. V. R. v. Cleary

Citations

• 125 Pa. 442
• 17 A. 468
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 735

Syllabus

<p>1. In a proceeding to assess damages for land taken for railroad purposes, testimony as to how many building lots the land under consideration could be divided into and what such lots would be worth separately, is inadmissible.</p> <p>2. It is proper to inquire what the tract was worth, having in view the purposes for which it was best adapted, but it is the tract and not the lots into which it might be divided, that is to be valued.</p> <p>3. Nor is it competent to show, in such proceeding, that the owner had declined to sell or lease the land, or the reasons he gave therefor, his view upon the subject not being relevant to the inquiry before the jury.</p> <p>(a) An administrator bought land at a sheriff’s sale, under a judgment obtained against his intestate (the prior owner of the land) in his lifetime; and, after the purchase, but before the execution, acknowledgment and delivery of the deed, a railroad company entered under the right of eminent domain.</p> <p>4. In such case, the administrator had a title sufficient to authorize him to institute proceedings for damages in his own name, and whether his title was absolute or he held as trustee for the heirs, was determinable after the damages were fixed and the money paid into court.</p> <p>5. A purchaser at sheriff’s sale acquires an inchoate title in the land purchased, by virtue of his bid; the subsequent acknowledgment and delivery of the deed provides him with evidence of his title which relates to and takes effect as of the date of the sale recited.</p>