Hobson v. City of Philadelphia

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtSTERRETT, J.
Citation150 Pa.St. 595,24 A. 1048
PartiesHOBSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.
Decision Date03 October 1892
24 A. 1048
150 Pa.St. 595

HOBSON
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 3, 1892.


Appeal from court of common pleas, Philadelphia county; Arnold, Judge.

Action by Joseph Hobson against the city of Philadelphia. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

On December 4, 1883, plaintiff purchased certain premises on Wood street, Philadelphia, at which time the street was laid out on the official plans of the city, but was not opened. On August 30, 1889, the owners of the ground included within the lines of Wood street opposite plaintiff's premises dedicated that street to the public, and thereafter, in the summer of 1890, the city graded the street according to the confirmed plan which existed at the time of the dedication, the effect of which was to depress the level of the street below the level of plaintiff's premises a distance varying from 4 to 11 feet.

E. Spencer Miller and Charles B. McMichael, Asst. City Sols., and Charles F. Warwick, City Sol., for appellant.

L. H. R. Nyce, for appellee.

STERRETT, J. In his statement of claim plaintiff alleges that in grading a portion of Wood street in 1891, pursuant to an ordinance of the council, the city defendant excavated the bed of said street in front of his property to a depth varying from 4 to 11 feet, thereby leaving said property so far above the level of the street as to render it inaccessible for ordinary use, and thus injuring it to the extent of $1,600, which he claimed as damages. His evidence was directed to the difference in market value of his property before said grading was done and its value when the work was completed, as affected by said Improvement of the street. In a clear and concise charge calling attention of the jury to the evidence, etc., the case was submitted by the learned judge, and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff for $900. It appears that plaintiff's property is part of a larger lot, which the executors of William Wright, by deed of December 4, 1883, conveyed to him in fee. It is bounded by the "northeastly side" of Wood street, the "northwestly side" of Wright street, the "southeastly side" of Gates street, etc. The side lines of these three boundary streets are so given in the description as to indicate a purpose to limit the operation of the grant in that direction to them respectively. That purpose is further evidenced by the words which follow, viz.: "Together with the free and common use, right,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 21 mars 1908
    ...399; Davis v. Ry. Co., 24 S.W. 777; Klinkenbeard v. St. Joseph, 27 S.W. 521; Wilber v. Fort Dodge, 90 N.W. 186; Groff v. Philadelphia, 24 A. 1048; Maghee v. Avondale, 31 Wkly. L. Bul., 163; Neubert v. Toledo, 2 O. Dec., 148; Owens v. Milwaukee, 47 Wis. 461.) And that in no event is the city......
  • Bokoch v. Noon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 17 janvier 1966
    ...ingress, egress and regress from and to the rear portion of his lot to the public road. We said in Hobson v. Phila., 150 Pa. 595, 24 A. 1048 (1892), that '* * * it is nevertheless true that the construction of the deed should be controlled by the intention of the parties * * *'. If the inte......
  • Anspach v. City of Altoona
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 5 mars 1932
    ...has been repeatedly applied. See O'Brien v. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. 589, 24 A. 1047, 30 Am. St. Rep. 832; Groff v. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. 594, 24 A. 1048; Klenke v. West Homestead Borough, 216 Pa. 476, 65 A. 1079; Ellwood Lumber Co. v. Pittsburgh, 269 Pa. 94, 112 A. Judgment affirmed. TREXLER,......
  • Vanderbilt University v. Williams
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 13 mars 1926
    ...highway, an easement over the highway is expressly granted, the fee to the highway is excluded. Hobson v. Philadelphia (1892) 150 Pa. 595, 24 A. 1048; Brown v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (1909) 36 Utah, 257, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 86, 102 P. This would seem to be an entirely reasonable rule of c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 21 mars 1908
    ...399; Davis v. Ry. Co., 24 S.W. 777; Klinkenbeard v. St. Joseph, 27 S.W. 521; Wilber v. Fort Dodge, 90 N.W. 186; Groff v. Philadelphia, 24 A. 1048; Maghee v. Avondale, 31 Wkly. L. Bul., 163; Neubert v. Toledo, 2 O. Dec., 148; Owens v. Milwaukee, 47 Wis. 461.) And that in no event is the city......
  • Bokoch v. Noon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 17 janvier 1966
    ...ingress, egress and regress from and to the rear portion of his lot to the public road. We said in Hobson v. Phila., 150 Pa. 595, 24 A. 1048 (1892), that '* * * it is nevertheless true that the construction of the deed should be controlled by the intention of the parties * * *'. If the inte......
  • Anspach v. City of Altoona
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 5 mars 1932
    ...has been repeatedly applied. See O'Brien v. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. 589, 24 A. 1047, 30 Am. St. Rep. 832; Groff v. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. 594, 24 A. 1048; Klenke v. West Homestead Borough, 216 Pa. 476, 65 A. 1079; Ellwood Lumber Co. v. Pittsburgh, 269 Pa. 94, 112 A. Judgment affirmed. TREXLER,......
  • Vanderbilt University v. Williams
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 13 mars 1926
    ...highway, an easement over the highway is expressly granted, the fee to the highway is excluded. Hobson v. Philadelphia (1892) 150 Pa. 595, 24 A. 1048; Brown v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (1909) 36 Utah, 257, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 86, 102 P. This would seem to be an entirely reasonable rule of c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT