Skip to main content
· 3/19/1917

Philadelphia v. Conway

Citations

  • 257 Pa. 172
  • 101 A. 472
  • 1917 Pa. LEXIS 703

Syllabus

<p>Eminent domain — Assessment of benefits — Opening of streets— Measure of damages — Elements to be considered by jury- — Evidence —Report of viewers — Harmless error — Objection not raised below.</p> <p>• 1. Where property lies at the corner of unopened intersecting streets, and the streets are thereafter opened and separate juries of view appointed to assess damages and benefits resulting to the abutting property from the opening of each of the two streets, benefits may be separately assessed for the opening of the street that the entire property has been benefited by the improvement.</p> <p>2. The owner of property at the southwestern corner of Walnut and Fifty-eighth streets in the City of Philadelphia was assessed upon which but a small portion of the property abuts if it appear for benefits for the opening of Fifty-eighth street. The ordinance provided in effect for the opening of Fifty-eighth street from the north to Walnut street and for the opening of Walnut street from Fifty-eighth street to Sixtieth street. Such property owner contended that the ordinance provided only for the opening of Fifty-eighth street to the north side of Walnut street, that, as his property ran only to the middle of Walnut street, it did not abut on Fifty - eighth street and could not, therefore, be assessed for benefits. Held, that the ordinance provided for the opening of Fifty-eighth street to the south side of Walnut street; that as the defendant’s property ran to the middle of Walnut street, it abutted on Fifty-eighth street as opened for half the width of Walnut street and was properly assessed for benefits.</p> <p>3. Although the portion abutting on Fifty-eighth street was but a small portion of the tract, yet as Fifty-eighth street connected with a main thoroughfare, the whole tract was thereby advantaged, not merely the small portion directly abutting thereon, and the question of the extent of the benefit of the improvement to the entire property, if any, was properly sub

Judges: Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.