The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-01-04
claims against CITY
City Solicitor James H. TOTrsy Interviewed
by a Tribune Reporter,
SUITS that AGGREGATE $4,000
They Are Caused by the City Not OBJ.
tanning Release or Properly AS
sessing the Damages--TheY Might
Have Been Avoided-Each Case
viii Be Tried Separately.

sessing the Oamages--TheY Might
Have Been Avoided-Each Case
viii Be Tried Separately.
Much comment has been caused by
the numerous claims for damage that
have arisen during the past year. all
having their origin in public improve
ment Some of these cases date back
for several years and the surprising
thing about the situation Is that Ira
H. Burns, ex.oity solicitor. is attorney
for the claimants in each instance. In
deed Mr.. Burns makes no secret OF his
Intentions. He proposes, if possible, to
show that q mistake was made when
be was turned down last spring. and IL
the signs portend anything. Mr.. Burns
will be a candidate for the position
year hence
To learn something about the status
of affairs as at present existing.
TRIBUNE reporter waited on City So
licitor Torrey yesterday Mr. Torrey
was 10th to speak. He said that he
preferred to fight the battle out him
self without the aid Of the newspapers,
but when the reporter pointed out to
him the deep concern Of the public. ho
consented to speak.
MR.. ToRREY INTERVIEWED.
"Why are there go many suits pond
ing against the city at this timer asked
the reporter
Because the city has made public
improvements, such as grading streets
and constructing sewers and in some
cases opening and widening streets.
without securing release or asSess
ment of the damages Prior to the con
stitution of 1874 the courts had held
that there was no liability on
the part of municipal corporations
for consequential damages arising
from municipal improvements. But
the constitution of 1874 provided
that not only damage for property
taken, but also for property injured
must be paid by all corporations exer -
cising the right of eminent domain.
At least asyearly as 1881 the Suprsme
court decided that under this provision
Of the constitution municipal corpora
tions were liable for any consequential
damage resulting to PROPERTY from the
grading of streets So far as | know
no claim WAS ever made in Scranton
for damages for such cause until the
present year.
"What is the total amount OF the
damages, as claimed up to datsP"
In round numbers upward OF
$40, ,OO0,"
METHOD OF PROCEDURE,
What method Of procedure will
you follow
"The statute gives the city the right
Of appeal from the award of viewers
within thirty days after their report
has been filed. have in every case re
ported to councils, when the reports
have been filed, and in every case
have been instructed to appeal. A
separate appeal must be fled for every
individual property for which dam
ages have been awarded. Upon each
appeal the court will frame an issue,
in which the property owner will ap'
pear as the plaintiff and the city as the
defendant. Each case will have to ba
tried on the question. whether the
property is damaged. and, If so, how
much"
How much time will elapse befor'
the casessget on the trail listH
"unless they are advanced by rule
or order of court; from Que to tw
years after they are begun. AS il
other casesi regular jury trial will
ensue. the costs, ranging from S25 t
$50. to be paid by the losing party.
docs it make any differences in tn
case, if the property holders petition
for the Improvements on which the,
claim damages?
"rhe supreme court has held tina
the mere signing of the petition for tn
improvement, does not stop the pre-
perty owner from claiming damage
The fact that he has signed peti4io
may nave some weight with the jar
upon his claim.
COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.
is there any way by which the cit.
could have avoided the present diff
cultyY
"Yes. The act of 1889 provides tha
viewers to assess damages, may be ap
pointed before the work is done. ant
the city, if dissatisfied with the amour
of damages awarded, may repeal tn
ordinance and so escape liability Thi'
method has been pursued in all case
where improvements have been pro
vided for within the present year, un
less the property holders voluntsril
released the city from any claims fo
damages,
what will he the future result. Il
your judgment. of this step on the par
of dissatisfied propertyholders' Will
it not act as bar to progress aud put
! lie improvement
whether or not any portion of tn
cost OF an improvement should be pal
out of the general city fund is sI
clusively legislative question for tn
councils. The important danger to b
avoided is the making of improve
ments which are liable to result |
claims for damage without clear an
distinct knowledge Of the amount {
these damages. The most importaI
consideration in the minds of property
holders is the advantage to ho derive
! Without any previous settlement
the damages the property owners o.
very apt to forget the benefits an
magnify the damages.
II think the natural result OF th
present situation will be, that cour
ellis will hesitate to pass ordinances fo
improvements. until claims for dan
ages have been released, or settled ,
such amounts as the councils are sati;
fed, ought to be paid out Of the gamer
| II F,,nJ -