Shaw v. City of Philadelphia

Citations

• 169 Pa. 506
• 32 A. 593
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1123

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Road law — Widening street — Damages—Leasehold interest.</p> <p>In an action against the city to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the demolition and re-erection of the front of a build-, ing in the course of widening a street, the tenant in possession may introduce evidence showing actual injury from dirt and grime which was necessarily encountered, and which injured his stock.</p> <p>In such case where the plaintiff testifies to loss of 'profits, but the verdict shows that the jury did not take such loss into consideration, and the court clearly instructs the jury that such loss could not be considered, it is not ground to reverse the judgment because the court overruled a motion to strike out the portion of plaintiff’s testimony relating to profits.</p> <p>It is not error in such case for the court to refuse to charge that “ the plaintiff is only entitled to recover the depreciation in the market value in his leasehold, as affected by the widening of the street.”</p>