Hoff v. Allegheny County
| Decision Date | 24 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | 99 |
| Citation | 343 Pa. 569,23 A.2d 338 |
| Parties | Hoff et al. v. Allegheny County, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued September 30, 1941.
Appeal, No. 99, March T., 1941, from judgment of C.P Allegheny Co., July T., 1940, No. 2890, in case of Catherine Hoff et al. v. County of Allegheny. Judgment reversed.
Appeal from award of viewers. Before MARSHALL, J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant county appealed.
Judgment reversed, with a venire facias de novo.
Nathaniel K. Beck, Assistant County Solicitor, with him Walter P Smart, County Solicitor, for appellant.
Frank W. Ittel, with him Harry Shapera, for appellees.
Before SCHAFFER, C.J.; MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant, County of Allegheny, petitioned for the appointment of a Board of Viewers to ascertain the extent of the damages occasioned to abutting property owners as a result of the improvement and relocation of the Curry Hollow Road. An appeal was taken from the award to the Court of Common Pleas by appellees, guardians of the estates of two minors whose property adjoins the road. The jury rendered a verdict for appellees, and after the refusal of appellant's motion for a new trial and the entry of judgment on the verdict, this appeal followed.
On June 20, 1938, the Court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny County entered a final confirmation of a grand jury plan for the improvement and relocation of the Curry Hollow Road, which resulted in the damages for which this suit was instituted. A right of way of variable width was contemplated which was to attain a maximum width of 165 feet for a short distance directly in front of the property of appellees. This plan also provided that the paved portion of the road was to be 60 feet in width, and its construction was so ordered. The learned trial judge, over the objection of the appellant, ruled that the Court of Quarter Sessions exceeded its authority in confirming a plan for the construction of the road over a right of way exceeding 120 feet in width, and that to the extent the order confirmed the right of way over and above that width, it was a nullity. Appellees, therefore, were permitted to introduce testimony that since the 45-foot differential between 120 and 165 feet represented land the major portion of which would, under the circumstances, be owned by the owner of the land situate directly opposite from their property on the other side of the road, appellees' means of access was almost destroyed and the frontage of their property abutting on the road as improved and relocated was materially reduced from that which they had immediately prior to such improvement and relocation.
The sole question here for determination is whether or not it was error to permit appellees in this proceeding for land damages to introduce testimony in an attempt to show that the width of the road was other than as established in the grand jury plan which had been finally confirmed by the Court of Quarter Sessions. We are firmly convinced that it was error to allow this collateral attack on a final order of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that appellant was materially prejudiced thereby.
The Act of June 13, 1836, P.L. 551, with its numerous supplements and amendments, confers authority on the Court of Quarter Sessions to order, inter alia, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial