211 Pa. 401 | Pa. | 1905
Opinion by
This was a proceeding in the court below to determine the the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs’ intestate by reason of the location and construction of the defendant company’s railroad through his farm in Chester county. The only question requiring consideration here is the competency of certain witnesses called by the plaintiffs to prove the damages which they allege they have sustained by reason of the construction of the railroad through the land. The settled rule
A witness need not be a real estate expert to qualify him to testify to the market value of property injured by the construction of a railroad through it, but all persons familiar with the property who have formed an opinion are competent to testify to its value: Jones v. Railroad Co., supra; Pennsylvania & New York R. R. & Canal Co. v. Bunnell, 81 Pa. 414 ; Beck v. Railroad Co., 148 Pa. 271. In Curtin v. Nittany Valley R. R. Co., 135 Pa. 20, it is held that a farmer, living a few miles distant, who has known a farm for forty years, seeing the greater part of it in passing and repassing upon the public road, has been upon it and at the buildings, and knows the general selling price of land in the neighborhood, is a competent witness as to market value. And in McElheny v. McKeesport & Duquesne Bridge Co., 153 Pa. 108, we held a witness competent who had known the property ten or fifteen years and knew of sales of like property in the neighborhood. In Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 95 Pa. 426, Gordon, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said: “ Though his (witness) knowledge of the value of lands in that neighborhood may have rested solely upon a few purchases made by the railroad company, and from no other sales or purchases in the real estate market, yet he had some knowl
The appellant has failed to quote in the assignments of error all the testimony bearing on the competency of the witnesses whose admission to testify is the subject of complaint in the assignments. We have, however, read the testimony as printed in the appendix of the paper-book, and are satisfied that the witnesses disclose a sufficient knowledge of the requisite facts to render them competent to testify in this case. The witness Long is a farmer and had resided in the vicinity of the Hope land nearly seventy years. Ramsey' had lived in the vicinity of the land all his life and was familiar with it. Copeland is a farmer, was acquainted with the Hope property, and had resided within four miles of it for twenty-one years. William Mullen is a farmer and supervisor and lived within two miles of the Hope property and knew it well. Frank Russel is postmaster at Pomeroy, knew the property, and had lived in the neighborhood for thirty-seven or thirty-eight years. Samuel D. Parke owns a farm and lived all his life within two miles of the Hope property and had passed it frequently. These are the witnesses whose competency is questioned in the assign
The learned counsel for the appellant contend that three of the witnesses disclosed incompetency by testifying that they were unable to give the items which entered into their calculation of the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. The authorities cited by the learned counsel do not sustain this contention. They simply declare what “ matters are to be taken into-consideration as affecting the market value.” But even when the witness gives these matters (elements of damages) “ they are not separately to be estimated item by item and a result to be reached by adding together the different estimates : ” Shano v. Bridge Co., 189 Pa. 245. The sum which the owner is entitled to recover by reason of the construction of a railroad through his land is the difference in the market value of the property immediately before and after the construction of the road, and if a witness has a knowledge of the requisite facts to enable him to give the total amount of the difference, his inability to give the elements of damage does not render him incompetent. It simply affects the credit of the witness and the weight of his testimony. It may partly or wholly discredit his testimony with the jury, .but, as said by Mr. Justice Agnew in White Deer Creek Improvement Co. v. Sassaman, 67 Pa. 415, his opinion of total or aggregate loss or value is permitted to go to the jury as some evidence of the value of the property and the damages sustained.
The question of the competency of a witness in cases of this character is a preliminary question and the trial court should see that the witness discloses his competency by a proper examination before he is permitted to testify generally.