Haley v. City of Philadelphia.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1871
• Parties: Haley <I>et al. versus</I> City of Philadelphia.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 45

68 Pa. 45

Haley et al. versus City of Philadelphia.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 28, 1871.

March 1, 1871.

May 8, 1871.

February 28th and March 1st 1871.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ. READ, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 223, to January Term 1871 J. Parsons (with whom was J. C. Bullitt), for plaintiffs in error. —Interest constitutes a substantive part of the principal, and cannot be severed: Estate of Bank of Pennsylvania, 10 P. F. Smith 471; McQuesney v. Hiester, 9 Casey 435. Interest runs from filing the report: Penna. Railroad v. Cooper, 8 P. F. Smith 408. The owner would not have the award increased if the land enhanced in value after the finding and before the confirmation: Searle v. Lackawanna Railroad, 9 Casey 57. The power of the city to use the land at any time, deprives the owner of its use beneficially: City v. Dickson, 2 Wright 247; City v. Dyer, 5 Id. 463. The Act of 1869 is unconstitutional if meant to apply to property already taken: Caldwell v. Catawissa Railroad, 25 Leg. Intel. 332.

C. H. Jones (with whom was T. J. Barger, City Solicitor), for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 8th 1871, by SHARSWOOD, J.

It was undoubtedly competent for the legislature, in providing for the ascertainment and payment of damages for property taken and appropriated for public use, as in this case of the Fairmount Park, to direct at what time the amount should be payable, and a jury in assessing the damages must govern itself accordingly. It might be a more just provision to direct in every case interest from the date of the assessment. We must look to and be governed by the law as it stood at the time when the jury made the assessment. The 10th section of the Act of April 14th 1868, Pamph. L. 1086, has no application to this case, because, although the report of the jury was filed on the 14th day of April 1868, the day the act was approved by the governor, and became a law, yet the jury had been appointed, proceeded and found their verdict under the previous Act of March 26th 1867, Pamph. L. 547. By the 3d section of that act it was provided that owners of ground taken should be paid according to the value to be ascertained by a jury: "And said jury shall proceed and their award shall be reviewed and enforced in the same manner as provided by law in the opening of roads in the city of Philadelphia." It was settled by this court in The City of Philadelpha v. Dyer, 5 Wright 463, that under the laws as to the opening of roads in the city of Philadelphia, interest is to be allowed from the date of the assessment. We are of opinion that the court below erred in reducing the amount of the verdict and entering judgment for such reduced amount under the reserved point.

The only other question which can arise upon...