Hays v. Wilkinsburg & East Pittsburg Street Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 39, Oct. T., 1902, by-defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1901, No. 137, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Miriam Hays et al. v. Wilkinsburg & ’East Pittsburg Street Railway Company. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Bbown, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 39, Oct. T., 1902, by-defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1901, No. 137, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Miriam Hays et al. v. Wilkinsburg & ’East Pittsburg Street Railway Company. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Bbown, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs presented this point: [2. That the measure of damages is the cost of grading, paving, curbing and sewering the street through the plaintiffs’ land in the manner and to the extent set forth in the contract in evidence, with interest from July 15, 1900.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Potter,
The appellant in this case, procured from the appellees an agreement for a right of way across their premises in the borough of Swissvale. Under the contract the appellant was at liberty to enter upon the property, and grade the right of way, and make cuts and fills, lay down rails, erect poles, and string wires therefrom; it was empowered to do all things necessary to construct, maintain, and operate upon and through the said premises, a system of double track electric street railway.
As part of the consideration for these privileges, the appellant agreed to grade…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Taylor v. North Pacific Coast RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by1 opinion
- Snyder v. Bassler Limestone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917