Duke v. B. & C. V. R. Extension Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Duke v. B. & C. V. R. Extension Co.

18 A. 566, 129 Pa. 422, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 966

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 7, 1889

DocketNo. 43

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A. 566 (Duke v. B. & C. V. R. Extension Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duke v. B. & C. V. R. Extension Co., 18 A. 566, 129 Pa. 422, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 966 (Pa. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion,

Mr. Justice McCollum:

The offer of the ordinance of September 23, 1880, was properly rejected. It was not relevant or material to the issue made by the pleadings. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the railroad company, in constructing its road upon Water street in the borough of Chambersburg, made an embankment in the street in front of his lots, by reason of which he sustained damage; and this allegation was denied by the company. The ordinance did not fix the grade of Water street, nor attempt to do so. It merely granted to the railroad company the right to use the street for its road, provided it conformed to a certain grade. It was the grade of the railroad to which the proviso referred. In this case the grade of the railroad did not conform to the actual grade of the street. We need not [425]*425discuss the question of the liability of a railroad company for damages, where it locates its road in conformity with the paper grade of a street, before an actual change of grade is effected by the city or borough authorities. It will be time enough to consider this question when it fairly arises.

We think the reasons given by the learned judge for excluding the evidence, are a sufficient vindication of his ruling.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion,

Mr. Justice McCollum:

The offer of the ordinance of September 23, 1880, was properly rejected. It was not relevant or material to the issue made by the pleadings. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the railroad company, in constructing its road upon Water street in the borough of Chambersburg, made an embankment in the street in front of his lots, by reason of which he sustained damage; and this allegation was denied by the company. The ordinance did not fix the grade of Water street, nor attempt to do so. It merely granted to the railroad company the right to use the street for its road, provided it conformed to a certain grade. It was the grade of the railroad to which the proviso referred. In this case the grade of the railroad did not conform to the actual grade of the street. We need not [425]*425discuss the question of the liability of a railroad company for damages, where it locates its road in conformity with the paper grade of a street, before an actual change of grade is effected by the city or borough authorities. It will be time enough to consider this question when it fairly arises.

We think the reasons given by the learned judge for excluding the evidence, are a sufficient vindication of his ruling.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A. 566, 129 Pa. 422, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-v-b-c-v-r-extension-co-pa-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack