Hurley v. Jones

30 A. 499, 165 Pa. 34, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 923
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 12, 1894·No. Appeal, No. 242·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Cukiam,

The defendant’s point was properly refused by the learned court below. This was not a condemnation proceeding, but an ordinary action of trespass for injury to the plaintiff’s close. The plaintiff was entitled to recover any actual damages he suffered by reason of the trespass of the defendant, and he complained of the destruction of his vegetables and his fences. Any advantage to the lot by reason of the fill is not a proper subject of consideration.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hurley v. Jones, 30 A. 499, 165 Pa. 34, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 923 (Pa. 1894).

30 A. 499 (Hurley v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

A. H. Reid Creamery & Dairy Supply Co. v. Philadelphia
118 A. 11 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Read v. Webster
113 A. 814 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1921)