Helme v. Borough of Kingston

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Helme v. Borough of Kingston

43 A. 1102, 191 Pa. 191, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 802

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 24, 1899

DocketAppeal, No. 317

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A. 1102 (Helme v. Borough of Kingston) 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

Helme v. Borough of Kingston, 43 A. 1102, 191 Pa. 191, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 802 (Pa. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In the^ court below, this was an appeal by plaintiff from the decree of the court of quarter sessions confirming the report of viewers appointed to assess damages, etc., done by laying out and opening Reynolds street in the defendant borough.

The only question presented by the evidence was one of fact exclusively for the jury, viz : What if any damages did the plaintiff sustain by reason of said laying out and opening ? That question was fairly submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $4,562.50.

It is conceded that the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed unless there is error in one or more' of the learned tria] judge’s instructions or rulings. No such error [193]*193is disclosed by the record; nor is there anything in any of the four specifications that requires discussion. They are all overruled, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

In the^ court below, this was an appeal by plaintiff from the decree of the court of quarter sessions confirming the report of viewers appointed to assess damages, etc., done by laying out and opening Reynolds street in the defendant borough.

The only question presented by the evidence was one of fact exclusively for the jury, viz : What if any damages did the plaintiff sustain by reason of said laying out and opening ? That question was fairly submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $4,562.50.

It is conceded that the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed unless there is error in one or more' of the learned tria] judge’s instructions or rulings. No such error [193]*193is disclosed by the record; nor is there anything in any of the four specifications that requires discussion. They are all overruled, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A. 1102, 191 Pa. 191, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helme-v-borough-of-kingston-pa-1899.