Port v. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 91, July T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., May T., 1892, No. 238, on verdict for plaintiff. Petition for appointment of viewers to assess damages for an injury caused by the failure of defendant to construct a causeway. Before Furst, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the defendant’s railroad was located across the land now owned by plaintiff, but then owned by James Hight and J. D. Hight.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 91, July T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., May T., 1892, No. 238, on verdict for plaintiff. Petition for appointment of viewers to assess damages for an injury caused by the failure of defendant to construct a causeway. Before Furst, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the defendant’s railroad was located across the land now owned by plaintiff, but then owned by James Hight and J. D. Hight. Viewers were appointed upon petition of the Messrs. Hight in 1855, and damages to the amount of $910 were awarded to the owners. These damages were fully paid by…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
An examination of this record with special reference to the specifications, discloses no substantial error. The questions involved, — so far as they are material, — have been sufficiently considered and correctly decided by the learned president of the common pleas. It is unnecessary to add anything to what has been said by him in his opinion on the questions of law reserved, etc., and on that opinion the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Seattle & Montana Railroad v. RoederWashington Supreme Court · 1902
- Regina v. Monroe CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- City of Honolulu v. CollinsHawaii Supreme Court · 1957
- Davis v. Wheeling, Pittsburg & Baltimore RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Clements v. Phila. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.