Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, in case of In Re: Condemnation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, of Right-of-Way for Legislative Route 147, Section 2, Deed Book B-26, Page 351, Claim No. 1505421, David S. Erb, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Defendant, No. 99 September Term, 1972.
C. Edmund Wells, with him Arthur F. Loeben, Jr., and Wells, Campbell & Wells, for appellant.
Martin Burman, Assistant Attorney General, with him George Bristol, Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 112]
In this eminent domain case, the Commonwealth (appellee-condemnor), in separate proceedings, condemned two tracts owned by David S. Erb (appellant-condemnee) which were located on opposite sides of South Hanover Street, North Coventry Township, Chester County. A Board of View was appointed and after a view of both properties and after hearings concerning both properties, awarded $79,743 to the appellant-condemnee for the first tract (under the Docket No. 467) and $9,500 to the appellant-condemnee for the second tract (under the Docket No. 485). While making separate awards pursuant to the two separate condemnations, the viewers noted that the two properties "were actually acquired, developed and used by the appellant-condemnee as a separate single property under unity of use for business purposes."
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 113]
In its appeal of the award, appellee-condemnor, intending to appeal the award of $79,743, i.e., No. 467, mistakenly referred to No. 485. The appeal also mistakenly identified the property as 203-2-5 South Hanover Street, the true street address being 201-03. Appellant-condemnee filed a motion to quash the appeal, claiming the appeal failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 516 of the Eminent Domain Code, Act of June 22, 1964, Spec. Sess., P.L. 84, Art. V, 26 P.S. § 1-516. The Court of Common Pleas of Chester County refused the appellant-condemnee's motion to quash and this appeal followed.
The issue is whether the appellee-condemnor, in its appeal, satisfied the requirements of Sections 516(a)(2) and (a)(4) of the Eminent Domain Code which state:
"(a) The appeal shall set forth: . . . (2) A brief description or identification of the property involved. . . . (4) Objections, if any, to the viewer's report, other than to the amount of the award." There can be no doubt that the appellee-condemnor complied with Section 516(a)(4) in that it was objecting only to the amount of the award.
A more difficult question is whether the appellee-condemnor complied with Section 516(a)(2). This Court recently dealt with a somewhat similar situation in Exxon Corporation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation and Law, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 301, 312 A.2d 121 (1973), wherein the condemnor's appeal never mentioned the condemnee-lessee, Exxon, and only referred to the award and interests of the condemnee-lessor, Law. The condemnor's failure to comply with Sections 516(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) caused this ...