86 A. 494 (Pa. 1913), 81, Fornof v. Borough of Wilkinsburg

Docket Nº:81
Citation:86 A. 494, 238 Pa. 614
Opinion Judge:MR. JUSTICE MOSCHZISKER:
Party Name:Fornof v. Wilkinsburg Borough, Appellant
Attorney:James E. Hindman, with him W. B. Rodgers, for appellant, F. C. McGirr, with him John Marron, for appellee,
Judge Panel:Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
Case Date:January 06, 1913
Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 494

86 A. 494 (Pa. 1913)

238 Pa. 614

Fornof

v.

Wilkinsburg Borough, Appellant

No. 81

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 6, 1913

Argued: November 1, 1912

Appeal, No. 81, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1907, No. 163, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Minnie Fornof v. Wilkinsburg Borough. Affirmed.

Appeal from award of jury of viewers. Before MACFARLANE, J.

At the trial plaintiff offered to prove by W. H. Bealafeld that he built a number of houses, and that he gave his assistance to his sister and his brother-in-law in the building of the houses in question in this case; that the houses were built originally to correspond -- after receiving the grade from the borough at the time -- the houses were built to suit the ideas of the builders to how high they should be above the grade; that a few years afterwards, in 1889, the Borough of Wilkinsburg changed the grade of Penn avenue, raising the grade in front of this property so that it threw the pavement upon the belt course at the eastern end of the property, for a few inches on the belt course, and extending over about one-third of the way across the building, diminishing to nothing; that the pavement in front of the building was then laid by the plaintiff to accommodate the buildings and that change of grade; that then came this second change of grade, for which the present action is brought, and that the plaintiff is now required to raise her pavement five or six inches higher to accommodate this second change of grade. This for the purpose of laying the whole situation before the jury, and to show that at the first change of grade the pavement was laid as high on the building as it could be laid without considerable damage to the property; for the purpose, as stated, of giving to the jury the full information as to the situation of the property at the time this second change of grade was made.

By the Court: Let me get your idea. Is it merely offered in that way to show that, as far as it was raised at the other change of grade, that practically that was all right, but that it was done as far as it could be done?

By Mr. McGirr: We don't claim any damages, anyhow. We let it go.

By the Court: That is not what I mean. As far as the damage to the physical condition of the property, as it was before, it was all right?

By Mr. McGirr: Yes, sir.

By the Court: I think, in view of the testimony, that is all right.

By Mr. Hindman: I would like your honor to give me an exception to it, for the reason it proposes to show the condition of this property as existing in 1889, or sixteen years prior to the date of the improvement for which damages are sought in...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP