Case ID: pa_154/html/0463-01.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

Baird et al., Appellants, v. Schuylkill River East Side R. R.
    
      Railroads — Eminent domain — Injury to business — Evidence.
    In condemnation proceedings, where plaintiffs, a partnership, consisting of the owner of the lands and his two sons, claim damages for interference with their business, and the case is tried at the same time with the suit of the owner brought to recover damages for the land, it is not error for the court to give binding instructions for the defendant where there is no testimony showing the value of any interference with plaintiff’s business.
    Argued Jan. 9, 1893.
    Appeal, No. 469, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiffs, John Baird & Sons, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1888, No. 671, on verdict for defendant.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
    Appeal from award of jury awarding damages in condemnation proceedings.
    At the trial the facts appeared as stated in the preceding case. It further appeared that the firm of John Baird & Sons consisted of John Baird, the owner of the real estate, and his two sons, Thomas E. Baird and John E. Baird. The firm occupied the property in question without any lease from the owner, and merely at his sufferance. No evidence was offered of the market value of any leasehold interest, or of any special injury to the business of the firm. There was evidence however that the contracts were made by the firm for repairs to the property, and that payments for such repairs were made out of firm assets, and these bills were given in evidence, although it would seem that these items were considered in connection with the preceding case.
    
      The court charged as follows :
    “ The other case is a claim of John Baird & Sons for interference to their business. The plaintiff, however, has not offered you any testimony showing the value of an3r interference to his business, and for 3'-ou to fix any amount for the interference to his business would be an absolute guess on your part, and that you have no right to do. Under the law, therefore, I instruct you that it is your duty to render a verdict in the case of John Baird & Sons for the defendant.”
    Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was above charge, quoting it.
    
      John Gr. Johnson, Wm. Henry Lex with him, for appellant.
    
      William H. Addiclcs, for appellee.
    January 23, 1893 :
   Per Curiam,

We do not think the instruction complained of in the specification of error was erroneous. The. learned judge below instructed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the defendant for the reason, as stated by him, that the plaintiffs had not offered any evidence showing the value of the alleged interference with their business. If the learned judge below was right in his view of the evidence, and it has not been made to appear that he was wrong, we see no error in instructing the jury that they had no right to base their verdict upon a mere guess.

Judgment affirmed.