Appeal, No. 223, April T., 1960, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1959, No. 858, in case of Joseph J. Jerome et al. v. Laurel Pipe Line Company. Judgment affirmed.
John W. Mamula, Abraham Fishkin, and Frank Reich, for appellants.
Robert A. Jarvis, Raymond W. Cromer, and Beck, McGinnis & Jarvis, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 132]
The court below refused plaintiffs' motion for new trial in a land condemnation case.
They allege that a new trial is necessary because of the inadequacy of the jury's verdict of $900, with interest, and because of four alleged trial errors.
Under its authority as a public service corporation, Laurel Pipe Line Company condemned a 30-foot right of way for the installation of an 18-inch oil pipe line extending about 466 feet through plaintiffs' land situate in Springdale Borough, Allegheny County. The piece of land, somewhat triangular in shape, adjoining Route 28, was vacant and used only for the erection of billboards. Springdale Borough had no zoning ordinance. The land was subject to prior right-of-way easements of Peoples Natural Gas Company, consisting of a 12-inch high pressure gas line, and New York State Natural Gas Corporation, which had installed two 20-inch high pressure gas lines therein.
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 133]
An easement of the West Penn Company, dated February 27, 1945, across the southeasterly line of the property stipulated against the erection of any buildings thereon for a period of twenty years. A board of view had made an award to plaintiffs of $5,300 from which both parties took an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
At the trial, plaintiffs' testimony as to value indicated damage between $24,910 and $32,000. Defendant's two real estate experts testified that the damage due to the easement imposed by the condemnation was $550 and $600, respectively. Following the jury's verdict of $900, with interest, the court below refused plaintiffs' motion for a new trial and directed entry of judgment on the verdict. Plaintiffs appealed.
The first two of the alleged errors committed by the trial judge were not raised in the court below by appellants in their motion for new trial, and consequently cannot properly be considered by this Court on appeal. Craft Engineering Company, Inc., v. Messa, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 447, 453, 90 A.2d 628. In ...