Oakley v. Luzerne Borough
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 17, Jan. T., 1904, by-defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Feb. T., 1899, No. 204, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in ease of Larner H. Oakley v. Luzerne Borough. Exceptions to report of P. A. O’Boyle, Esq. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Errors assigned were in dismissing exceptions to report of referee.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The court below, upon petition of the plaintiff, appointed viewers to ascertain and assess damages alleged to have resulted from the widening and change of grade of Mill street by the borough authorities. The viewers having duly reported, the borough appealed from the award of damages to the plaintiff, and in pursuance of an agreement of the parties the cause was tried before a referee under the provisions of the act of April 6,1869.
*427The numerous assignments of error which related to the ownership by the defendant of the land occupied by Mill street are without merit. The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Quicksall v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Commonwealth v. ShoemakerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Bohan v. Avoca BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Weir v. Plymouth BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Shiloh StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Milford Borough v. BurnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Philadelphia Electric Co. v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Scott v. Donora Southern RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Elliott v. H. B. Alexander & Son, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- McGuire v. Wilkes-BarreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.