Appeals, Nos. 67 and 68, March T., 1953; from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Aug. T., 1950, Nos. 556 and 555, in cases of Charles Adams, William Adams and J. Fred McKean v. City of New Kensington, and Charles Adams and William Adams v. Same. Judgments, as modified, affirmed; reargument refused June 26, 1953.
Carroll Caruthers, Special Counsel, with him Harry W. Crum, City Solicitor, and Anthony J. Bonadio, Assistant City Solicitor, for appellant.
James Gregg, with him Vincent R. Smith, P. K. Jones and Wayne R. Donahue, for appellees.
Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD
This is an appeal from a verdict of a jury assessing damages to the plaintiffs for the taking of their lands by eminent domain.
By virtue of ordinances Nos. 213 and 214 the City of New Kensington approved and established widths, lines, grades, etc. appearing on the plan of the Department of Highways of the Commonwealth, showing a proposed improvement for a new street, a part of the state highway route passing over a bridge between Westmoreland and Allegheny Counties. The ordinances further adopted the plan as the official city plan for said street,
approved and opened the same as a public highway by a relocation of said state highway route, and provided for the removal of structures, for which the city assumed responsibility.
The ordinances were passed in connection with the building of a new bridge across the Allegheny River under the Act of June 4, 1943, P.L. 883, 36 PS § 3201. Under this Act the bridge on the Allegheny County side was to be located in the borough of Tarentum, but the situs of the other end of said bridge was merely fixed as the County of Westmoreland. The two ordinances in question placed the bridge in New Kensington.*fn1
When the ordinances were enacted a plan of the State Highway Department for the building of the road and approach to said bridge was filed with the city council and adopted. The plan provided for the building of the street or approach to said bridge through the lands of Charles Adams, William Adams and J. Fred McKean, and through the lands of Charles Adams and William Adams.
These proceedings resulted in two petitions for a view, one by Charles Adams, William Adams and J. Fred McKean (Appeal No. 67 March Term, 1953), and the other by Charles Adams and William Adams (Appeal No. 68 March Term, 1953). These resulted in awards to the respective plaintiffs; the city appealed to the court of common pleas; and the two appeals were tried together. During the trial it developed that there was an outstanding interest in the respective ...