Case Name: Hobson, Appellant, v. Philadelphia
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1893-02-06
Citations: 155 Pa. 131
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 55
Parties: Hobson, Appellant, v. Philadelphia.
Judges: Before Pax son, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Heydrick, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Hobson, Appellant, v. Philadelphia.
Streets—Damages—Eminent Domain—Municipalities.
A person is not entitled to recover damages from a city for the obstruction of a street in which he lives and does business, where the injury which he suffers is common to the public generally.
Plaintiff owned a lot at the corner of Terraco and Cotton streets in Manayunk. Cotton street is thirty feet wide, and so steep that it is dangerous for vehicles to use it. For the protection of pedestrians the city erected platforms and steps occupying about fourteen feet in width of the street on the side opposite to plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff claimed that this so obstructed the street that it could not be used by wagons. Held, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages from the city for the obstruction of the street.
Argued Jan. 25, 1898.
Appeal, No. 55, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, Joseph Hobson, from judgment C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1891, No. 1297, entering compulsory nonsuit.
Before Pax son, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Heydrick, JJ.
Trespass for obstruction of street.
At the trial, before Finletter, P. J., it appeared that plaintiff, a baker, owned a house and lot on the southwest corner of Terrace and Cotton streets in Manayunk. Cotton street is thirty feet wide and so steep that it is difficult and dangerous for vehicles to use it. In 1891 the city erected, for the convenience of pedestrians, platforms and steps along the street on the side opposite plaintiff’s property. These platforms and foundations were about fourteen feet wide and extended the whole length of plaintiff’s lot, and so obstructed the street, plaintiff testified, that it could not be used for wagons. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
Eredriek A. Sobernheimer, for appellant, cited:
Patent v. Railroad, 14 W. N. 545; Reading v. Althouse, 93 Pa. 400 ; Pusey v. Allegheny, 98 Pa. 522; Penna. Schuylkill Valley R. R. v. Walsh, 124 Pa. 544; Chester Co. v. Brower, 117 Pa. 647 ; Jones v. R. R., 151 Pa. 30; Const., art. 16, § 8.
James Alcorn and Charles E. Warwick, for appellee, not heard, cited:
Gold v. City, 115 Pa. 184.
February 6, 1893:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
We think the nonsuit in this case was properly entered.
Judgment affirmed.