Rees v. Schuyl. R. R.

Citations

• 135 Pa. 629
• 26 W.N.C. 500
• 20 A. 149
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1230

Syllabus

<p>1. In a proceeding to assess compensation for injuries caused by the location and construction of a railroad, the question whether one date or another is the proper one, as of which the witnesses should estimate the market value, is immaterial when it is undisputed that there was no change in the occupation, use, or value of the property between the two dates.</p> <p>(a) An ice company’s storage house was in part destroyed by the construction of a railroad. The railroad company and the ice company agreed that the former should erect a new ice-house, and that the latter might take it at cost, allowing the same “as an offset to the damages awarded to them,” this agreement not to prejudice the rights of either party.</p> <p>(b) It was further agreed that if the ice company should regard the bill for the cost of the house as excessive, experts should be appointed to fix its just cost and decide whether said company’s business could conveniently be carried on in it. The ice company accepted the house when built, and used it, without disputing the bill for its cost:</p> <p>2. Upon the assessment of damages for the construction of the railroad, it was proper to show that the use of the house in the ice business was inconvenient and expensive, not by reason of defective construction of the house, but in consequence of the presence of the railroad track, and that the value of the property was depreciated by such inconvenience.</p> <p>3. The cost of erecting the new ice-house being a stipulated offset to the damages sustained by the plaintiffs, an instruction directing the jury to deduct the same from the damages assessed by them and to fender a verdict for the difference, was neither a substantial nor a technical error.</p> <p>4. When a certain method of proving a claim for damages has been adopted at the suggestion of the defendant, who is afforded ample opportunity for cross-examination as to the nature and amount of the items making up the claim, the defendant will not