Hartman v. Reading & Pottsville Railroad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January Term, 1888, No. 174, E. D., Error to the Common Pleas of Berks County to review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action of assumpsit, November Term, 1885, No. 48. This was an appeal put at issue as an action of assumpsit, by the Beading & Pottsville Bailroad Company, defendant, from a report of viewers appointed on the petition of Frederick S. Hartman, plaintiff, to assess the damages caused by the crossing of his farm by the defendant’s road; the award of…
Read the full summary
January Term, 1888, No. 174, E. D., Error to the Common Pleas of Berks County to review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action of assumpsit, November Term, 1885, No. 48. This was an appeal put at issue as an action of assumpsit, by the Beading & Pottsville Bailroad Company, defendant, from a report of viewers appointed on the petition of Frederick S. Hartman, plaintiff, to assess the damages caused by the crossing of his farm by the defendant’s road; the award of the viewers was $17,160. After the jury were sworn, by consent of both counsel they were taken to the premises of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
"We cannot discover anything in the assignments of error which requires a reversal of this case. Undoubtedly, when a jury have viewed and examined the premises, their own observation, as the learned judge well said, is just as good as that of any of the witnesses, and while they are not to disregard the testimony produced on the trial, they are, nevertheless, not required to repudiate the evidence of their own senses.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Seattle v. LittellWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- City of Tacoma v. HansenWashington Supreme Court · 1910