Roberts v. Philadelphia

Citations

• 239 Pa. 339
• 86 A. 926
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 569

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Eminent domain — Widening and regrading streets — Damages—Expert testimony — Cross examination — Proof of other sales — Charge of court — Inspection by jury.</p> <p>1. In the trial of an appeal from the award of a road jury assessing damages to the plaintiff’s property occasioned by the widening and regrading of a street, it is wholly indefensible to allow witnesses for the plaintiff, who have given their opinion as to value, to be cross-examined as to the prices at which other properties had been sold in the same neighborhood in recent years, and the prices at which other properties which were not sold were held by the owners.</p> <p>2. It is admissible on cross-examination of a witness to inquire whether he knew of certain sales made of properties in the neighborhood only because the value of the opinion he has expressed depends in a large degree upon his familiarity with ruling prices. To introduce the prices, however, at which the properties were sold is to suggest to the jury a comparison which they are unable to make in order to determine what credit they are to give the witness: Rea v. Pittsburgh, &c., R. R. Co., 229 Pa. 106, followed.</p> <p>3. In such case it is error for the court to charge the jury in such terms as to indicate that, having made inspection of the premises, and observed the purposes for which the land could be used, whether it was farm land or was ripe for improvement as city property, they might use their own judgment as to these matters and disregard the testimony in the ease. It was never intended that the view of the jury should be substituted for the evidence, and that they should make up their verdict from the view in disregard thereof.</p> <p>Potter and Moschzisker, JJ., dissent.</p>