party cannot claim in Pennsylvania

2021See ACS Enters., Inc. v. Norristown Borough Zoning Hearing Bd., 659 A.2d 651, 653 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (“[A] party [that] has prevailed in the proceeding below is not an aggrieved party and consequently has no standing to appeal to this Court.”); Burchanowski v. Cnty. of Lycoming, 378 A.2d 1025, 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (“When one issue in a case is decided against a party, but the party prevails on the other issues and wins the case in chief, the party cannot claim to have been ‘aggrieved’ by the decision; he therefore lacks standing to appeal the single issue decided against him.”).

1990Burchanowski v. County of Lycoming, 32 Pa.Commw. 207, 210, 378 A.2d 1025, 1027 (1977).

2021“When one issue in a case is decided - 19 - J-A28016-20 against a party, but the party prevails on the other issues and wins the case in chief, the party cannot claim to have been aggrieved by the decision; he therefore lacks standing to appeal the single issue decided against him.” Eck v. Powermatic Houdaille, Div. of Houdaille Industries, Inc., 527 A.2d 1012, 1017 (Pa. Super. 1987) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2015Further, “[w]hen one issue in a case is decided against a party, but the party prevails on the other issues and wins the case in chief, the party cannot claim to have been aggrieved by the decision; he therefore lacks standing to appeal the single issue decided against him.” Eck v. Powermatic Houdaille, Div. of Houdaille - 17 - J-A30040-14 Industries, Inc., 527 A.2d 1012, 1017 (Pa. Super. 1987) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2022Section 13 of the Act of June 27, 1939, P.L. 1199, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5341.13.13 “Actual value means market value,” which is defined as the “price which a purchaser, willing but not obliged to buy, would pay an owner, willing but not obliged to sell, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied.” Valley Forge Golf Club, Inc. v. Bd. for the Assessment & Revision of Taxes of Montgomery Cnty., 285 A.2d 213, 215-16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1971) (Valley Forge) (citation omitted); accord Harley- Davidson Motor Co. v. Springettsbury Twp., 124 A.3d 270, 27

2022Section 13 of the Act of June 27, 1939, P.L. 1199, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5341.13.13 “Actual value means market value,” which is defined as the “price which a purchaser, willing but not obliged to buy, would pay an owner, willing but not obliged to sell, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied.” Valley Forge Golf Club, Inc. v. Bd. for the Assessment & Revision of Taxes of Montgomery Cnty., 285 A.2d 213, 215-16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1971) (Valley Forge) (citation omitted); accord Harley- Davidson Motor Co. v. Springettsbury Twp., 124 A.3d 270, 27

2021See ACS Enters., Inc. v. Norristown Borough Zoning Hearing Bd., 659 A.2d 651, 653 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (“[A] party [that] has prevailed in the proceeding below is not an aggrieved party and consequently has no standing to appeal to this Court.”); Burchanowski v. Cnty. of Lycoming, 378 A.2d 1025, 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (“When one issue in a case is decided against a party, but the party prevails on the other issues and wins the case in chief, the party cannot claim to have been ‘aggrieved’ by the decision; he therefore lacks standing to appeal the single issue decided against him.”).

2006“As a general rule a party cannot claim as a right to give as evidence in rebuttal that which he might have given in chief....” Id. at 137 (quoting Young v. Edwards, 72 Pa. 257, 265 (1872)).

1972Chief Justice Shaw in Cushing v. Billings, 2 Cush. 158 , 159, said: ‘The orderly course of proceeding requires that the party whose business it is to go forward should bring out the strength of Ms proof in the first instance.’” (Emphasis in original.) Glen Alden Coal Co. v. Schuylkill County Commissioners, 345 Pa. 159, 173 , 27 A. 2d 239, 246 (1942). “(A)s a general rule a party cannot claim as a right to give as evidence in rebuttal that which he might have given in chief. ...” Young v. Edwards, 72 *102 Pa. 257, 265 (1872).

1972Chief Justice Shaw in Cushing v. Billings, 2 Cush. 158 , 159, said: ‘The orderly course of proceeding requires that the party whose business it is to go forward should bring out the strength of Ms proof in the first instance.’” (Emphasis in original.) Glen Alden Coal Co. v. Schuylkill County Commissioners, 345 Pa. 159, 173 , 27 A. 2d 239, 246 (1942). “(A)s a general rule a party cannot claim as a right to give as evidence in rebuttal that which he might have given in chief. ...” Young v. Edwards, 72 *102 Pa. 257, 265 (1872).

1941Aside from the fact that a party cannot claim the benefit of the Act of 1891 by cross-examining a witness on a matter collateral to the subject to which the witness was not directly called to testify (Ray’s Estate, 304 Pa. 421, 434, 435 , 156 A. 64 ; Lorenzo v. Rinn et al., Ex’rs, 298 Pa. 108, 115 , 148 A. 53 ; Patterson v. Hughes, 236 Pa. 315, 319 , 84 A. 829 ), there is no testimony of the -witness to any occurrence in the presence of appellant, the witness and the decedent, or to any other occurrence which would render appellant generally competent under the act.

1941Aside from the fact that a party cannot claim the benefit of the Act of 1891 by cross-examining a witness on a matter collateral to the subject to which the witness was not directly called to testify (Ray’s Estate, 304 Pa. 421, 434, 435 , 156 A. 64 ; Lorenzo v. Rinn et al., Ex’rs, 298 Pa. 108, 115 , 148 A. 53 ; Patterson v. Hughes, 236 Pa. 315, 319 , 84 A. 829 ), there is no testimony of the -witness to any occurrence in the presence of appellant, the witness and the decedent, or to any other occurrence which would render appellant generally competent under the act.