Case ID: sadler_8/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Plff. in Err., v. Mary A. Magee et al.
    The rule laid down in Pennsylvania R. Oo. v. Duncan, 111 Pa.'352, 5 Atl. 742, for the assessment of damages to land injured by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the construction of a railroad — followed.
    (Argued March 19, 1888.
    Decided April 23, 1888.)
    July Term, 1887,
    No. 143, E. D.
    All the Judges present. Error to Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County to review a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiffs in an action of trespass on the case.
    Affirmed.
    This action was brought for consequential damages to the plaintiffs’ property, caused by the construction of the Filbert street extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad.
    The plaintiffs’ property was located on the north side of Filbert street, in the city of Philadelphia, between Twentieth and Twenty-First streets, at the point where the railroad turns from its own property on the south side of the street to and upon the highway. The western-most portion of the property was immediately opposite and within a few feet from the track of the railroad, which, at this point, was built on iron piers. One of the pillars on which the track of the railroad rested was also situated so near to the property of the plaintiffs that their right of way was somewhat impeded. At the trial, April 21, 1887, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs of $15,874.
    The property is situated in the same locality, and only a few squares east of the property, the question of damage to which was considered in the case of Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Duncan, 111 Pa. 352, 5 Atl. 742. The same character of injury was inflicted on the plaintiffs’ property as upon the property in that case; and the plaintiff in error admits the fact of its liability if the decision in that ease is correct. The case was removed to this court pro forma, for the purpose of raising before the Supreme Court of the United States the same constitutional questions which were raised in the case of Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Duncan, which has been removed to that court by writ of error.
    
      A. II. Winkerskeen and Wayne MacVeagh for plaintiff in •error.
    (No brief was filed for defendant in error.)
   Pee Curiam:

Judgment affirmed.