Lewis v. Borough of Darby
This text of 31 A. 335 (Lewis v. Borough of Darby) 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.
Opinion
The only error assigned is the refusal of the court to affirm the defendant’s point for charge: “If the jury believe that the change of grade was made at the request of William P. Lewis and made as he designated, and was a special advantage to him, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover.” In declining to affirm this point, the learned trial judge rightly said, in substance, that although the jury might find that plaintiff’s intestate requested the change to be made, and it was done accordingly and was advantageous to him, yet if the damages he sustained bjr thus changing the grade were greater than the advantages that accrued to him therefrom, he had a right to claim and recover damages measured by the difference between the advantages and disadvantages. That right he had under article XVI, sec. 8 of the constitution; unless he waived it, or did something to estop himself from asserting this claim. There is no evidence of either in the case. The principle is so obviously correct that it needs neither argument nor citation of authority to support it. It is recognized in Jones v. Borough of Bangor, 144 Pa. 638, and other cases.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
31 A. 335, 166 Pa. 613, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-borough-of-darby-pa-1895.