Dintaman v. Harrisburg
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 1, May T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of G. P. Dauphin Go., Sept. T., 1917, No. 264, on verdict for plaintiff for damages sustained by the opening of a street in the case of Arlanda P. Dintaman v. City of Harrisburg. Issue directed to try appeal of plaintiff from an award of viewers by reason of the taking of improvements for the opening of a street. Before McCarrell, J. A special verdict was rendered subject to reserved decision of tbe court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 1, May T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of G. P. Dauphin Go., Sept. T., 1917, No. 264, on verdict for plaintiff for damages sustained by the opening of a street in the case of Arlanda P. Dintaman v. City of Harrisburg. Issue directed to try appeal of plaintiff from an award of viewers by reason of the taking of improvements for the opening of a street. Before McCarrell, J. A special verdict was rendered subject to reserved decision of tbe court. Tbe court subsequently entered judgment on tbe verdict for tbe plaintiff for $21,000. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were tbe…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Kephart,
The principal question involved in this appeal is the amount of compensation to be paid the appellee for the opening of Front street in the City of Harrisburg. To •an intelligent understanding of the case, it will be necessary to review some of the early history of the city. Hardscrabble was a small village built on both sides of a turnpike, which was laid out and opened in 1787, along the Susquehanna river. Houses were built there as early as 1727. The Borough of Harrisburg was incorporated in 1791; when first laid out, by the executors of John Harris, the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Philadelphia ParkwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Bush v. McKeesport CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Harrison's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915