Schuylkill River E. S. R. Co. v. Kersey

• Citation: 133 Pa.St. 234,19 A. 553
• Parties: SCHUYLKILL RIVER E. S. R. CO. v. KERSEY.
• Decision Date: 17 March 1890
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

19 A. 553
133 Pa.St. 234

SCHUYLKILL RIVER E. S. R. CO.
v.
KERSEY.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 17, 1890.

Error to court of common pleas, Philadelphia county; D. NEWLIN FELL, Judge.

Thad. L. Vanderslice and Lewis C. Cassidy, for plaintiff in error. Jos. L. Caven, for defendant in error.

19 A. 554

MCCOLLUM, J. No complaint is made by the defendant company of the instructions to the jury on the question of damages, and our inquiry is limited to alleged error in the admission of evidence. The plaintiff was the lessee of a wharf property on the Schuylkill river, in Philadelphia, extending from the river to Twenty-Fourth street. It was leased to him as a coal wharf and yard. Upon it he carried on the business of receiving, storing, and delivering coal for other parties, and of receiving, storing, and selling coal and sand on his own account. The appliances used in the business, and necessary to carry it on, belonged to him. In January, 1886, the defendant company entered and located its road upon the demised premises, appropriating for that purpose a strip of land 60 feet in width, and dividing the property into two parts. The sheds, runs, and other appliances indispensable to the business for which the property was leased were partially destroyed by this addition of the company, and the construction of new ones, adapted to the changed condition, became necessary in order to continue the business. A bridge, with a single span of 68 feet, and an elevation of 21 feet above the railroad tracks, and a derrick, sheds, and runs of a corresponding height, were required. The company recognized the necessity for these appliances as the direct consequence of the location of its railroad, and admits that it promised the plaintiff to construct them, but excuses its non-performance on the ground that it could not agree with him as to the details of the work. In other words, the plaintiff wanted better structures than the company was willing to build, or considered necessary,' in view of the probable duration of his leasehold. It was contemplated by the parties that the business should be continued by the plaintiff, and that he should have, as far as practicable, the same facilities for carrying it on that he had before enjoyed. It was the only business which his lease allowed him to establish there, and, if he abandoned it, his leasehold was worthless, because he could not sublet or sell it without the consent of his lessor. The company failing to provide the...