Reed v. Pittsburg, Carnegie & Western Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1904 |
| Docket Number | 71 |
| Citation | 210 Pa. 211,59 A. 1067 |
| Parties | Reed v. Pittsburg, Carnegie & Western Railroad Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 24, 1904
Appeal, No. 71, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. Term, 1901, No. 598, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary J. Reed v. Pittsburg Carnegie & Western Railroad Company. Affirmed.
Appeal from report of jury of view. Before BROWN, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $9,000. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were (1, 2) rulings on the evidence set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court; (3) the whole charge, quoting it; (4, 5) that the court erred in not setting aside the verdict as excessive.
It is therefore, affirmed.
W. M. Lindsay, with him A. M. Neeper, for appellant. -- The market value cannot be ascertained by evidence of particular sales for a particular purpose: Railroad Co. v. Patterson, 107 Pa. 461; Railway Co. v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325; Becker v. Railroad Co., 177 Pa. 252; Friday v. Railroad Co., 204 Pa. 405; Michael v. Pipe Line Co., 159 Pa. 99; R.R. Co. v. Patterson, 107 Pa. 461.
The court should have defined what is meant by "market value." That the failure of the court to do this was to render the charge inadequate and indefinite, and, therefore, error is apparent parent from the decisions of this court in analogous cases: Gilmore v. Hunt, 66 Pa. 321; Keil v. Gas Co., 131 Pa. 466; Pfeiffer v. Brown, 165 Pa. 267.
A new trial should be granted upon the equities of the case, under the Act of May 20, 1891, P.L. 101, sec. 2: Smith v. Times Pub. Co., 178 Pa. 481.
E. E. Fulmer, for appellee.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER and THOMPSON, JJ.
The first two assignments of error raise the question whether two of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the appellee showed a sufficient knowledge of the market value of her property taken for railroad purposes by appellant, to qualify them to testify in regard to it.
The property is situate in Bridgeville and the first witness testified that he knew of sales made in that locality and named parties who made them; that he knew the property involved in this suit and described it as a piece of property located upon the main street of Bridgeville and upon a thoroughfare and that it was a good business location with a frontage of a 100 or more feet and depth of 200 feet; that a Mr. Myers had made a sale to the Wabash Railroad and that he made a sale of one of his own properties to the same company; that he knew how property was held there both as to price and value and that people generally held it from $50.00 to $100 per foot. That he had been in the real estate business and that he knew the market value in 1902 and that he knew by the prices that had been given by people who owned property there and named three persons who made such sales; that he fixed the market value from communication as to prices; that his knowledge was based upon the selling and holding prices.
The second witness testified that he lived alongside of the property of appellee and described the buildings and their condition. He was in error as to the exact extent of its frontage. That he had inquired as to the value of real estate in the borough and that he had a general knowledge of the value of property there and that it kept advancing; that the place is a dear one and that this property is a valuable property. In response to a question by the court, he stated that from the information that he had as to selling prices and at which property was held, he would put the value on this property at between $40.00 and $50.00 per foot, and that it was worth twice or three times as much as that.
These witnesses show a knowledge of the property in question, its location, its uses, its buildings and its environment; of the prices of sales made in the borough and of the value placed upon property by people there. They were residents there and were therefore familiar with the value of property situate in the borough and their knowledge was derived from prices asked and sales made. The value of properties is generally a subject of more than ordinary concern with residents of small districts. Sales and purchases there are apt to excite unusual interest and beget a reasonably accurate knowledge of values. The testimony shows that these witnesses possessed the knowledge necessary to qualify them to testify as to the value of the property in question and brought them substantially within the rule stated by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial