Hurley v. Jones

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Hurley v. Jones, 165 Pa. 34 (Pa. 1894)
30 A. 499; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 923
Cukiam, Dean, Fell, Green, Mitchell, Williams

Hurley v. Jones

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cukiam,

The defendant’s point was properly refused by the learned court below. This was not a condemnation proceeding, but an ordinary action of trespass for injury to the plaintiff’s close. The plaintiff was entitled to recover any actual damages he suffered by reason of the trespass of the defendant, and he complained of the destruction of his vegetables and his fences. Any advantage to the lot by reason of the fill is not a proper subject of consideration.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
John Hurley v. Evan Jones
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Trespass—Damages—Evidence. In an action of trespass against a contractor engaged in grading a street, to recover damages for filling in a part of defendant’s lot and destroying his vegetables and fences, evidence that the lot was benefited by the fill is inadmissible.