Frontage, Inc. v. Allegheny County

• Citation: 195 A.2d 515,413 Pa. 31
• Parties: FRONTAGE, INC., a Corporation, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, a Municipal Corporation.
• Decision Date: 03 December 1963
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 515

195 A.2d 515 413 Pa. 31 FRONTAGE, INC., a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, a Municipal Corporation. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Dec. 3, 1963.

[413 Pa. 32] Alexander Unkovic, William G. Boyle, Kountz, Fry & Meyer, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Maurice Louik, County Solicitor, Francis A. Barry First Asst. County Solicitor, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

EAGEN, Justice.

This is a land condemnation case wherein the property owner appeals from the judgment below, alleging that the award was inadequate and that certain trial errors influenced the jury's verdict.

[413 Pa. 33]

Page 516

The issue has been tried in common pleas three times, and on two previous occasions, this Court directed retrial. See, 400 Pa. 249, 162 A.2d 1 (1960), and 408 Pa. 165, 182 A.2d 519 (1962).

The land involved, consisting of 8.859 acres, was condemned by the County of Allegheny for the purpose of establishing air navigation and terminal facilities, in connection with the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. Viewers awarded the appellant $13,150, including detention compensation. The jury, at the trial now under review, awarded $12,240, including $9000. for the value of the land taken, and detention money in the sum of $3240.

The characteristics of the land are adequately described in the opinion of this Court reported in 408 Pa. 165, 182 A.2d 519, supra, and need not be repeated here.

At trial, the expert testimony as to the fair market value of the land was in sharp disagreement. It varied between the sums of $7500. and $58,000. Unquestionably, there was sufficient competent testimony to justify the amount awarded by the jury.

The credibility of the oral testimony, under such circumstances, was for the jury to appraise: Springer v. Allegheny Co., 401 Pa. 557, 165 A.2d 383 (1960). The discrepancy therein was for the fact-finding body to resolve: Chiorazzi v. Commonwealth, 411 Pa. 397, 192 A.2d 400 (1963). In view of all the testimony in the record, we cannot say that the verdict was inadequate or against the weight of the evidence. Neither can we find any abuse of discretion in the refusal of the lower court to grant a new trial on this basis. Where the trial court refuses a new trial on the ground of inadequacy, we will not interfere with its action in the absence of a gross abuse of discretion: Paustenbaugh v. Ward Baking Co., 374 Pa. 418, 97 A.2d 816 (1953).

Appellant complains...