Preston Retreat v. City of Philadelphia

Citations

• 239 Pa. 323
• 86 A. 1016
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 566

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Eminent domain — Opening of streets — Damages — Evidence—Immaterial matters — Answers to points.</p> <p>1. Where iu a trial of a proceeding to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s property occasioned by the opening of a city street at a grade above the natural surface, the court has properly excluded evidence offered by the plaintiff to show the originally plotted grade at which the street was laid out, but in an examination of witnesses called by the plaintiff, and principally during their cross-examination, repeated reference was made to the earlier grade, which corresponded closely to the natural surface, but without reflection on the city for abandoning that grade, and only to explain the considerations which had entered into witnesses’ estimates, it is not error for the court to refuse defendant’s request for a point for charge to the effect that as a matter of law the jury was not entitled to take into consideration such originally proposed grade.</p> <p>2. In the trial of such a ease, where the plaintiff makes no claim for the cost of raising hi® property to the grade of' the highway, the lower court is correct in refusing to charge, as requested by the defendant, that the plaintiff could not recover for such cost.</p> <p>3. In such a case it is immaterial whether other streets in the same neighborhood have been fixed at the same grade as the street in question, and the court commits no error in refusing to allow defendant to ask a witness for the plaintiff on cross-examination whether the grade of the street causing the damage had not been fixed and determined by the grade of such other streets.</p>