Markle v. Phila.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 8, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1891, No. 1262, on verdict for plaintiff. Appeal from report of road jury assessing damages for widening and changing grade of Roxborough avenue.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 8, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1891, No. 1262, on verdict for plaintiff. Appeal from report of road jury assessing damages for widening and changing grade of Roxborough avenue. Before PenNYPACKER, J. When John Markle, one of the plaintiffs, was on the stand, he was asked: “ Q. Assuming that we shall find in this case that your property became subject to the construction of Man-ay unk avenue to its present height before Roxborough avenue was graded, was it not to your advantage to have Roxborough avenue graded as it is now rather…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice McCollum,
Under the'pleadings and the agreement of the parties the jury were charged with the duty of ascertaining from the evidence submitted to them, the depreciation, if any, in the market value of the plaintiff’s property caused by the widening and change of grade of Roxborough avenue. In the performance of this duty it was proper for them to take into consideration the condition of the property immediately before the work of widening and changing the grade of the street was commenced and the condition of it.immediately after the work was completed. It was competent…
2Cases cited1 opinion
3Cited by6 opinions
- Braucher v. Somerset BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Brewer v. Blue Mountain Consolidated Water Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Frick v. PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Walker v. South Chester RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.