Prager v. Armstrong County

Citations

• 48 Pa. Super. 140
• 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 350

Syllabus

<p>Road law — State highways — Acts of May 1, 1905, P. L. 318, and June 8, 1907, P. L. 505 — Appointment of viewers — Irregularity—Appeals.</p> <p>1. On an appeal by a county from an award of a jury of view assessing damages for .the improvement of a state highway, the county cannot object at the trial in the common pleas to the irregular action of the court of quarter sessions in appointing a jury of six viewers instead of a jury of three viewers. Such an irregularity might have been objected to at the time the viewers were appointed, but after they had made their award, and an appeal had been taken from the award, objection to the irregularity will be deemed to have been waived.</p> <p>2. The improvement of a public road by the state highway department, under the provision of the Act of May 1, 1905, P. L. 318, as a “state highway,” leaves the burden of maintaining such highway after it has been improved, precisely where it had before rested; and does not render the road a “work, highway or improvement” of any “municipal or other corporation.” The road, before, during and after the completion of the improvement is a public work of the state; and if land has been taken in making the improvement it was taken by the state by the right of eminent domain. Where proceedings have been instituted in the court of quarter sessions for the appointment of viewers to assess damages for the taking of such land, no appeal lies to the court of common pleas. Proceedings in the quarter sessions in such cases are only subject to review by the proper appellate court.</p>