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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Duke v. B. & C. V. R. Extension Co., 129 Pa. 422 (Pa. 1889)
18 A. 566; 1889 Pa. LEXIS 966
Clark, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

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

Opinion of the Court

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 *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.

Reference

Full Case Name
BENJ. DUKE v. B. & C. V. R. EXTENSION CO.
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
(a) A railroad company was-authorized by a borough ordinance to construct its roadbed upon a borough street, provided it should conform to a certain grade shown by a profile drawing attached to the ordinance, no grade for the street having been established previously by the borough. 1. In an action against the company to recover damages for injuries to lots abutting upon the street, caused by an embankment made by the company in the construction of its roadbed in accordance with the ordinance, the ordinance was inadmissible as a defence relieving the company from the payment of damages.