Baird v. Schuylkill River East Side R. R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Baird v. Schuylkill River East Side R. R., 154 Pa. 463 (Pa. 1893)
25 A. 834; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 915
Dean, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Baird v. Schuylkill River East Side R. R.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We do not think the instruction complained of in the specification of error was erroneous. The. learned judge below instructed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the defendant for the reason, as stated by him, that the plaintiffs had not offered any evidence showing the value of the alleged interference with their business. If the learned judge below was right in his view of the evidence, and it has not been made to appear that he was wrong, we see no error in instructing the jury that they had no right to base their verdict upon a mere guess.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Railroads — Eminent domain — Injury to business — Evidence. In condemnation proceedings, where plaintiffs, a partnership, consisting of the owner of the lands and his two sons, claim damages for interference with their business, and the case is tried at the same time with the suit of the owner brought to recover damages for the land, it is not error for the court to give binding instructions for the defendant where there is no testimony showing the value of any interference with plaintiff’s business.