McKeesport Boro. v. McKeesport Pass. Ry.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 13, 1893

McKeesport Boro. v. McKeesport Pass. Ry., 158 Pa. 447 (Pa. 1893)

27 A. 1006; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1611

Dean, Green, Mitchell, Sterrett, Thompson, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This case involved questions of fact which were clearly for the consideration of the jury, and hence defendant company’s request for binding instructions in its favor was rightly refused. The offer of evidence recited in the second specification was rightly excluded.

The subjects of complaint in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth specifications are portions of the learned judge’s charge recited therein respectively. There appears to be no error in either of these of which the defendant company has any just reason to complain. The contract’ obligation into which it entered, by accepting the ordinance of the borough, was rightly construed by the court. Neither of the specifications of error is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Street railways — Repair of street — Municipalities—Ordinances. A street railway company was authorized to lay its track upon a street which had been macadamized at the expense of the property owners. The ordinance provided that the company should keep in repair that portion of the streets and avenues traversed, and along which said railway may run, between the tracks and a space of one foot on each side thereof. The ordinance also provided that in ease of a change of grade, the railway should be changed to conform to the new grade at the expense of the company. The borough subsequently resolved to pave the street with Belgian blocks, and notified the company to pave with blocks the street between the tracks, and for one foot outside of the tracks. The company refused to do the paving as requested and merely sunk its rails to the new grade. The improvement was accordingly made by the borough. There was evidence that the space between the tracks and for one foot outside of the tracks was in bad repair before the improvement was made. Held, that the question of the company’s liability for the paving was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for the borough should be sustained.