Legal Opinion

Neff v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 12, 1902No. Appeal, No. 238PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal, No. 238, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 23, on verdict for plaintiff in case of R. K. Neff v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Trespass to recover damages for injuries to land caused by the remoyal of a bridge over a private lane.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 238, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 23, on verdict for plaintiff in case of R. K. Neff v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Trespass to recover damages for injuries to land caused by the remoyal of a bridge over a private lane. Before Bailey, P. J. At the trial counsel for plaintiff proposed to show by B. K. Neff, that his father, Jacob Neff, Jr., and his grandEather, Jacob Neff, Sr., lived on the farm known as the Benjamin K. Neff farm, adjoining the Gilbert Neff farm on the west; that his grandfather owning both tracts of…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mestrezat,

In the view we take of this case, the declarations of contractor Cams become immaterial to the issue between the parties, and although the testimony admitted to show his statement relative *379to the construction of the bridge should have been excluded, yet it did the defendant no harm and its admission is therefore not reversible error. For more than seventy years, the owners of the servient property, including the defendant company, had by their acts construed the clause in the elder Neff’s deed as giving the owner of the dominant property “ the privilege of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Schenkel v. Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  2. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Johnstone v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Town of Stamford v. VuonoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  3. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. WoodTexas Commission of Appeals · 1927
  4. STOZENSKI v. Borough of Forty FortSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Chestnut v. Autocar Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API