Reading & Pottsville R. v. Balthaser

Citations

• 126 Pa. 1
• 17 A. 518
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 829

Syllabus

<p>1. On the trial of an issue to determine the injuries to land from the construction of a railroad, it was drawn from a witness for the plaintiffs, on cross examination, that a portion of the land was under lease to a tenant; it then became competent for the plaintiffs to explain by another witness in chief that the land leased was not touched by the railroad appropriation.</p> <p>2. In such a proceeding, the land having its chief value in a quarry of limestone it contained, testimony offered by the plaintiffs to show where the yield of the quarry had been marketed, or what method of transportation had been employed, before the construction of defendant’s railroad, was irrelevant and inadmissible.</p> <p>3. But where the testimony was admitted, and the subject of the modes and cost of transportation in foi’mor years opened, it was error to refuse testimony afterwards offered by the defendant to show that rates of freight by rail had boon reduced in consequence of the new facilities offered by the building of defendant’s road.</p> <p>4. The true inquiry was, whether a broader market and better facilities for shipment were put within reach of plaintiffs by the building of defendant’s road; in other words, whether there were advantages to be set off against the disadvantages arising from the appropriation of the plaintiffs’ land for right of way.</p> <p>fa) Witnesses for the plaintiffe having testified to estimates of injuries the same in amount they had testified to, on a former trial, when improperly including consideration of the value of limestone beneath the railroad appropriation, on which account the judgment on the former trial was reversed,</p> <p>5. It was error to exclude inquiry on cross examination whether they had not made a new arrangement of the elements of the damage so as • to enable them to fix the damages at the same total as before, but by a different process, and this in consequence of the reversal of the former judgment.</p> <p>6. The lapse of