Case ID: walker_3/html/0143-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON & BALTIMORE R. R. VS. PATTERSON.
    The petition of other landowners for the eonstrnction of the railroad, and the release of damages by them is not evidence of the benefit of the railroad as against a landowner who did not release his damages.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Delaware County.
    No. 263
    January Term, 1873.
    In 1871 the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company changed a part of their route between Philadelphia and Chester. They located their road in such a manner as to pass through the farm of Abraham T. Patterson. Viewers were appointed to assess damages, but awarded none to Patterson, who then appealed. Upon a trial in the Common Pleas a verdict,was rendered against the Railroad Company for $1,200. During the trial the defendant made the following offers of evidence. ■
    “Defendant offers petition of citizens of Philadelphia and Delaware County, asking for this road. Plaintiff objects, and objection sustained.” (First error.)
    “Also to show that other land owners, a majority of them along the line, released. Plaintiff objects, and objection sustained.” (Second error.)
    “Also to show that the land along the line has greatly enhanced in value since the making of the road, and that most of it had been sold at greatly enhanced prices since that time. To which offer the plaintiff objected. The Court overruled the objection and admitted the offer so far as relates to all such land in the plaintiff’s neighborhood, naming a distance of about two miles, in either direction, so limiting it on the ground that in the near vicinity of Philadelphia, Darby Borough and Chester City, and at other points away from this neighborhood, other influences might and were likely to operate.” To which limitation the defendant excepted and this forms the subject of the third error.
    
      W. Ward and John M. Broomall, Esqs., for plaintiff in error,
    argued that whatever would show whether the location of the railroad was a benefit or an injury was evidence; Railroad Co. vs. Hottenstine, 47 Pa., 28; Harvey vs. Railroad Co., 47 Pa., 428; 1 Greenleaf Evidence, Part II, Chap. I, Sec. 51, a; Railroad Co. vs. Gilleland, 56 Pa., 445; Western Pa. R. R. Co. vs. Hill, 56 Pa., 460; Wyman vs. Lexington & W. C. R. R. Co., Am. Railroad Cases, 434.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on January 26, 1874, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

The first and second errors are wholly without merit. The third is founded on a misconception of the mode of proving the value of land. The rule laid down in East Penna; Railroad vs. Heister, 40 Pa., 53, will discover this. That case has been recognized in two cases decided at the last terra in the Western District at Pittsburg.

Judgment affirmed.