Legal Opinion

Billard v. Honesdale Borough

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 7, 1939No. Appeal, 40PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This was an appeal by the plaintiffs from an award of viewers in connection with the relocation of State Highway Route No. 6 in the Borough of Honesdale. The only assignment of error is to the refusal of defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was “exorbitantly excessive and out of all proportion to the actual damage suffered.”

As relocated the new highway took nearly all of the plaintiffs’ lot not occupied by buildings, and the rear of the dwelling house now fronts on the highway. The trial jury viewed the property.

The testimony of the husband plaintiff…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Brown v. PaxtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Baymond v. SternbergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. Harrisburg, Carlisle & Chambersburg Turnpike Road Co. v. Cumberland CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  4. In re the Election for Secretary of the United Towns Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
  5. Jordan v. Clearfield CountySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Vaughan v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API