Appeal, No. 99, April T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Nov. T., 1951, No. 393, in case of Dan S. Earnest et ux. v. Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County. Judgment affirmed.
Daniel J. Snyder, with him Pershing and Snyder, for appellants.
A. C. Scales, with him Henry E. Shaw, and Scales and Shaw, for appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 639]
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, entered on a jury verdict in an eminent domain matter, in favor of Dan S. Earnest and Edna S. Earnest, his wife, the plaintiffs-appellants, and against Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County, the defendant-appellee, in the amount of $2000; and from the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial by the court en banc below.
On October 19, 1951, the Municipal Authority presented its petition condemning certain land owned by the plaintiffs to be used by the Authority for the construction of a reservoir. The amount of land taken as fixed by the plaintiffs and the defendant was substantially the same. The plaintiffs claim 9.823 acres were taken and the defendant 9.18 acres. The land was taken out of a tract containing 72 acres, 37 perches.
A Board of Viewers, on December 21, 1956, awarded damages to the plaintiffs in the amount of $4500. Both sides appealed. After several counsel changes in the meanwhile, the case came to trial on April 27, 1957, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Authority and on July 30, 1959, the court below granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.
The case was again called to trial on April 1, 1960 and a verdict was returned by the jury in favor of the
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 640]
plaintiffs in the amount of $2000. The plaintiffs again moved for a new trial which was denied by the court en banc below.
The plaintiffs' principal complaint is that where all access to the property, as provided by a township road, had been destroyed by the taking, the court erred in permitting the jury to take into consideration, in fixing damages, the evidence that a new means of access, by way of a private road had been ...