Later courts went against this
Superseded — as noted by a later court
We believe that the Legislature intended the unit rule holdings of MeSorley, supra, and Spiwak, supra, to be overturned because inconsistent with “modern appraisal methods.”2
by statutemedium confidence
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by-
Mr. Justice Ladner:
While I concur in the result for the reason hereinafter set forth, I am compelled to dissent from the holding of the majority that under the facts of this case the question asked in cross examination was improper.
Here we have a case in which not merely the ground was taken but part of the building as well. Whether the remaining part of the building could be utilized or the whole building was a total loss was of course a relevant inquiry. As to that the defendant’s expert testified he considered the building a total loss. In the circumstances I believe it was proper on cross examination to ask this expert if, in arriving at his estimate of value “before and after taking” he had made separate ap-praisements of the ground and building, and if so, what they were, in order to ascertain whether the amount placed on the building was adequate. It seems to me it *149 was proper for the jury to know this for the purpose of determining the weight to be given to his testimony and to enable it “to place a fair estimate upon his testimony as to the damages sustained”: Davis v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 215 Pa. 581, 585 , 64 A. 774 (1906).
However, I agree with counsel for the appellee that what I conceive to be error was rendered harmless in view of the fact that the “breakdown” or separation of the values of ground and building was afterward brought out by counsel for the appellant as appears in the testimony. For this reason only, I concur in the result.
Justices Horace Stern and Chidsey join in this concurring opinion.