Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives v. Philadelphia

Citations

• 268 Pa. 559
• 112 A. 76
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 736

Syllabus

<p>Eminent domain — Municipalities—Land damages — Cross-examination — Similar sales — Property similarly situated — Discretion of court — Abuse—Appeal.</p> <p>1. In a land damage ease, property value cannot be established by the sale price of other properties similar in character, made at or near the time of appropriation.</p> <p>2. Where a witness considered, — in the sense that, in his estimate of value, he was aided by, or relied on, — prices paid for properties similarly situated, he may be cross-examined as to'the prices paid for such properties, as testing' his good faith, credibility, accuracy and extent of knowledge.</p> <p>3. When property, on the same or an adjoining street, is described as bearing a close resemblance, or nearly corresponding, to the one in question, as to improvements, size, location, general adaptability, and within the same business center, it may be said to be similarly situated.</p> <p>4. The rejection of such evidence is largely within the discretion of the trial court, which the appellate court will not reverse unless it is manifest that the evidence should have been admitted.</p> <p>5. Where, in a land damage case, witnesses for the property owner testified that the property was especially adapted for a hotel, a witness for the municipality, condemning the land, who had investigated the property, should be permitted to testify as to the value of the land for such purpose.</p> <p>Eminent domain — Damages for detention — Interest — Bate — Presumption.</p> <p>6. In a condemnation case, compensation for delay in payment of damages, is measured by the normal commercial rate of interest during the period of detention, and, if there is no evidence as to that rate, the presumption is that the legal rate was in effect.</p>