Ruscomb Street
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 106, Oct. T., 1905, by Sallie Houston Henry, Administratrix c. t. a. of Charles W. Henry, deceased, from order of Q. S. Phila. Co., Feb. T., 1903, sustaining exceptions to report of viewers In the Matter of the Vacation of Ruscomb Street. Exceptions to report of viewers. Before von MoschzisKER, J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the facts. Errors assigned were in sustaining exceptions to report of jury of view.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
It is argued that by the vacation of that part of Ruscomb street between the western line of the Germantown and Chestnut Hill Railway and the eastern line of Twentieth street, the appellant is deprived of one mode of ingress and egress to and from her lots which abut on Ruscomb street between Twentieth street on the west and Nineteenth street on the east, and that this is a special injury for which she is entitled to damages measured by the consequent depreciation in the value of these lots. The copy of the map or plan printed in the appellant’s paper-book, which we…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In re Melon StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- McGee's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Paul v. CarverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855
- Wetherill v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Howell v. Morrisville BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Spang & Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Hedrick v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Holmes v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- City of Atlanta v. DinkinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Ruscomb StreetSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.