Zug v. City of Pittsburg

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Zug v. City of Pittsburg

45 A. 61, 194 Pa. 367, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 394

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 2, 1900

DocketAppeal, No. 174

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A. 61 (Zug v. City of Pittsburg) 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

Zug v. City of Pittsburg, 45 A. 61, 194 Pa. 367, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 394 (Pa. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curtam,

It was not error to send the jury out to view the premises. They could understand the testimony far better, and could determine the merits of the varying opinion of witnesses as to the [371]*371value of the property, before and after the injury, with much more intelligence and satisfaction by seeing the property for themselves. They were properly cautioned by the court as to what they should do, and a representative of each party attended them. We think in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case it was a very proper direction by the court to send them out to view the premises.

The only question of a practical character before the jury was the difference between the value of the property before and after the change of grade. It was a question which was largely a matter of opinion among persons qualified to judge upon such a subject, and a considerable number of them were examined on each side. There was a very great conflict of opinion on this subject among the witnesses, and of course the whole matter had to be determined by the jury. We think they were properly instructed by the court below and we do not think the charge was misleading or unfair or inadequate. The action of the court upon the offers of testimony was without error. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curtam,

It was not error to send the jury out to view the premises. They could understand the testimony far better, and could determine the merits of the varying opinion of witnesses as to the [371]*371value of the property, before and after the injury, with much more intelligence and satisfaction by seeing the property for themselves. They were properly cautioned by the court as to what they should do, and a representative of each party attended them. We think in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case it was a very proper direction by the court to send them out to view the premises.

The only question of a practical character before the jury was the difference between the value of the property before and after the change of grade. It was a question which was largely a matter of opinion among persons qualified to judge upon such a subject, and a considerable number of them were examined on each side. There was a very great conflict of opinion on this subject among the witnesses, and of course the whole matter had to be determined by the jury. We think they were properly instructed by the court below and we do not think the charge was misleading or unfair or inadequate. The action of the court upon the offers of testimony was without error. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A. 61, 194 Pa. 367, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zug-v-city-of-pittsburg-pa-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack