Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1966, No. 858, in case of Community Housing Services, Inc. v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh.
Leonard M. Mendelson, with him William S. Hays, for appellant.
Richard W. Kelly, for appellee.
Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, O'Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Cohen. Mr. Justice Eagen took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Concurring Opinion by Mr. Justice Pomeroy. Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice O'Brien join in this concurring opinion. Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts. Mr. Chief Justice Bell joins in this dissent.
Community Housing Services, Inc. (appellant) was the owner of property condemned by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh. The Board of Viewers awarded appellant $16,200, and it appealed. The jury awarded appellant $14,000. Appellant has appealed to this Court.
In its "Statement of Question Involved" appellant phrases the question as follows: "Did the trial Court committed [sic] error in refusing to permit appellant's real estate expert to testify as to sales of comparable property which were made to appellee and which he
considered in reaching his opinion of the fair market value of appellant's property?"
In its "History of the Case" appellant notes that it moved for a new trial in the court below on three grounds: (1) the question noted above, (2) error by the lower court in another ruling on evidence and (3) the inadequacy of the verdict.
In its "Summary of Argument" and "Argument" appellant deals solely with single question set forth in its "Statement of Question Involved." The only mention of any other issue is contained at the end of its argument where the following paragraph appears: "It is evident that the application of the exclusionary rule was in a large part responsible for the totally inadequate verdict in this case. The prices paid by appellee for similar properties would have had a substantial influence on the jury in reaching their verdict."
Finally, the printed record in this appeal contains only the docket entries, a colloquy between the court below and counsel regarding the exclusion of the testimony referred to in the "Statement of Question Involved" and the opinion of the court below.
We believe this case is governed by Granowitz v. Erie Redevelopment Authority, 432 Pa. 243, 247 A.2d 623 (1968). There we held a verdict winner who complains of trial errors must convince the court that the errors were not cured by the verdict in its favor and that the errors produced an unjust result. While here, unlike Granowitz, appellant did complain of the inadequacy of the verdict in its motion for a new trial in the court below, it did not demonstrate that the verdict was inadequate or how the errors contributed to the ...