Pearson v. Yewdall

• Decision Date: 01 October 1877
• Citation: Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294, 24 L.Ed. 436 (1877)
• Parties: PEARSON v. YEWDALL
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

95 U.S. 294

24 L.Ed. 436

PEARSON v. YEWDALL.

October Term, 1877

MOTION by the defendant to dismiss the writ of error to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and by the plaintiff to amend the writ, by making the city of Philadelphia a party thereto.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The motions were argued by Mr. F. Carroll Brewster for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. William W. Wiltbank for the defendant in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

It having been suggested to us at the last term that the city of Philadelphia was a party to this cause in the court below, and adverse in interest to the plaintiffs in error, leave was granted the defendants in error to move to dismiss this suit, because the city is not named in the writ; and for the city to appear by counsel, to be heard in support of the motion. That motion has now been made; and the plaintiffs in error, while resisting it, ask leave, under sect. 1005 Rev. Stat., to amend their writ by naming the city as a defendant, in case it shall appear to be necessary.

The city councils, by ordinance, ordered that Paschall Street should be opened to public use. Thereupon the present defendants in error, owning property w ich would be taken by the opening, petitioned the Court of Quarter Sessions, conformably to the act of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania regulating such proceedings, to appoint proper persons to view the premises and assess their damages. In accordance with this petition, the court appointed a jury of six men to view the premises, and assess the damages which had been sustained. Notice of their appointment and of the time and place they would meet to perform their duties was served upon all the owners of property through which the street would run. Availing themselves of this notice, the plaintiffs in error appeared among others and presented their claims.

Notice of the meeting was also served, in accordance with the further provisions of the statute, upon the law department of the city; and the solicitor, who was charged by law with the duty of representing and protecting the interests of the city in all such matters, appeared before the jury in his official capacity. The viewers, after a hearing, made a report to the court of their allowances to the several claimants. The plaintiffs in error excepted to the report, for the reason, among others, that the amount awarded to them was too small; and the city also excepted, because it was too large. The Court of Quarter Sessions overruled the exceptions of both parties, and confirmed the report. The...