Watterson v. Allegheny Valley Railroad Co.
| Citation | 74 Pa. 208 |
| Parties | Watterson <I>versus</I> The Allegheny Valley Railroad Company. |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1874 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Before READ, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS and MERCUR, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county: No. 204, to October and November Term 1873.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
R. Pollock, for plaintiff in error.—The measure of damages was the value of the contract. That was to be ascertained by the business, &c., a depot would attract to the place: Hoy v. Gronoble, 10 Casey 10; Wolf v. Studebaker, 15 P. F. Smith 459; Meason v. Kaine, 17 Id. 126.
J. H. Hampton (with whom were J. S. & A. P. Morrison and J. Dalzell), for defendants in error.—Whether the depot would have advanced the price of the land was conjecture, and therefore damages on that basis would be speculative: McKnight v. Ratcliff, 8 Wright 169. The affirmance of the plaintiff's third point would have allowed the alteration of a solemn instrument by parol, which would have been error: Kennedy v. Erie and W. Plankroad, 1 Casey 225; Seitzinger v. Ridgway, 4 W. & S. 472; Sennett v. Johnson, 9 Barr 335; Bertsch v. Lehigh Co., 4 Rawle 130; Snyder v. Snyder, 6 Binn. 483; Beeson v. Hutchison, 4 Watts 442; Stub v. Stub, 3 Barr 255; Woods v. Wallace, 10 Harris 171. To reform a writing on the ground of fraud, the evidence should be clear, precise and unmistakable: Irwin v. Shoemaker, 8 W. & S. 75; Morrison v. Morrison, 6 Id. 516; Markley v. Swartzlander, 8 Id. 177; Cochran v. Perry, Id. 265; Stine v. Sherk, 1 Id. 195. The rule of the court for the measure of damages was correct: Hottenstine v. Railroad Co., 11 Wright 28; Harvey v. Railroad Co., Id. 428; Hornstein v. Atlantic Railroad Co., 1 P. F. Smith 87.
The opinion of the court was delivered, January 10th 1874, by AGNEW, J.
This case turns on the alleged agreement made by Mr. Phillips, the president, in behalf of the railroad company, to erect a freight and passenger depot on the one acre of land sold by the plaintiff to the railroad company for the sum of $1000. The other portions of the agreement relating to the wall and buildings were not denied, and so far as they were not performed, the jury allowed damages. The first question in the case arises on the measure of evidence necessary to establish the agreement for the erection of the depot; and this turns on the release of the right of way given by the plaintiff to the company. This paper is not printed for our inspection, but we presume, as there has been no controversy upon its terms, it was in the ordinary form, giving the right to enter and build the road, and releasing the value of the land occupied, and all damages arising out of its location and use. If the proof of the contract to build a depot on the one-acre lot does not contradict the terms or legal effect of the release, only the ordinary measure of evidence would be required to establish the contract, to wit: so much as would incline the weight of evidence to the side of the plaintiff. But if the evidence contradicts the release or its legal effect, it must possess the measure necessary to prove fraud or plain mistake, to wit, that which is clear and satisfactory.
In what respect does the agreement to erect the depot contradict the release? We can perceive none. It does not contradict the consideration of one dollar paid by the company: that money might be paid and the contract also be made to build the depot. Indeed, the nominal consideration in the release would lead to a ready inference, that something else was the consideration of a right of way through a mile and a quarter of land. It does not contradict the terms of the release itself. These are all admitted by the plaintiff, and indeed he rests upon them as the reason and consideration of the railroad company's promise to erect the depot. In no respect can we perceive that the plaintiff gainsays or desires to disprove or alter the release. On the other hand, it does not seem to follow, because the railroad company agreed to pay a nominal consideration of one dollar, that they did not promise to do something else as an equivalent for the right they obtained. The agreement to erect the depot is independent and executory — something to be done in the future; and does not conflict with the release. Both may stand together. The case of Weaver v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heller v. Heller's Executors
...Pa. 252, 259-61; Galway's Appeal, 34 Pa. 242, 244; Buckley's Appeal, 48 Pa. 491, 496; Lewis v. Brewster, 57 Pa. 410, 414; Watterson v. Railroad Co., 74 Pa. 208, 216; Holmes's Appeal, 79 Pa. 279, 289; Taylor v. Preston, 79 Pa. 436, 443; Audenreid's Appeal, 89 Pa. 114, 122-3; Parcell v. Gross......
-
Simons v. Wittmann
...depot thereupon. [Mobile, etc., Ry. Co. v. Gilmer, 85 Ala. 422; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Sumner, 106 Ind. 55, 5 N.E. 404; Watterson v. Ry Co., 74 Pa. 208; Houston, etc., Ry. Co. v. Molloy, 64 Tex. 607.] case can be found by us in the books where, for a breach of a builder's contract, as......
-
Bigham v. Wabash-Pittsburg Terminal Ry. Co.
... ... T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of ... C.P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1905, No. 174, in case of ... Kirk Q. Bigham and Thomas B ... Bigham and the Pittsburg, ... Carnegie & Western Railroad Company, Witnesseth: ... "That ... said Bigham doth hereby ... Little Saw Mill Run valley from the end of the big cut on ... line of the Pittsburg, Carnegie & ... R.R. Co ... v. Broomall, 18 W.N.C. 44; Watterson v. Allegheny ... Valley R.R. Co., 74 Pa. 208; Hays v. Street Ry ... ...
-
Press Publishing Co. v. Reading News Agency
... ... Cartledge, 7 W. & S. 394; Watterson v. Allegheny ... Valley Railroad Co., 74 Pa. 208. If the testimony of ... ...