Spiwak v. Allegheny County

Citation77 A.2d 97,366 Pa. 145
PartiesSPIWAK v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
Decision Date21 November 1950
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 97

77 A.2d 97
366 Pa. 145
SPIWAK

v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov. 21, 1950.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 29, 1950.

George S. Goldstein, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Nathaniel K. Beck, County Solicitor, John W. Mamula, Frank D. Young, Assistant County Solicitors, of Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before DREW, C. J., and STERN, STEARNE, JONES, LADNER and CHIDSEY, Jj.

[366 Pa. 146] DREW, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff, Joseph Spiwak, has appealed from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, refusing his motion for a new trial and sustaining a verdict of the Board of Viewers of that County for plaintiff in sum of $6200.

By authority of a Public Utility Commission order, dated the 17th of September, 1947, the County of Allegheny instituted condemnation proceedings against certain properties in the Borough of Whitaker, Allegheny County, in preparation for the construction of a new bridge over the Monongahela river. Plaintiff's property, consisting of a lot 117.96 feet in length by 25 feet in width and a two-story frame building was included among those taken. However, only so much of the property as the greater part of the house occupied was condemned and the remainder of the lot to the average depth of about 142 feet was not touched. At the trial expert witnesses for defendant set the value of the property prior to the taking at $4,500 and between $3,300 to $3,500 subsequent to the taking. Plaintiff's attorney, on cross-examination attempted to have these witnesses break down their figures and place a market value on the

Page 98

building as distinct from the lot prior to the improvement and upon each separately as affected by the improvement. The learned trial court sustained defendant's objections to this line of questioning and plaintiff now seeks a new trial on the ground that such testimony was admissible on cross-examination.

Plaintiff has cited McSorely v. Avalon Borough School Dist., 291 Pa. 252, on page 255, 139 A. 848, on page 850, in support of his contention and has called our attention specifically to the language where this Court said: 'The cross-examination may, of course, cover a wider field (than the examination in chief). 'In fact, any and every pertinent question may be put to him on cross-[366 Pa. 147] examination which will enable the jury to place a fair estimate upon his testimony as to the damages sustained by the plaintiff.' Davis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 215 Pa. 581, 585, 64 A. 774, 776.' By so...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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