Philadelphia Ball Club, Limited, v. City of Philadelphia mand for the manufactured article would justify, to charge the defendant in the same proportion for the injury sustained by the impeding of his works in his business thus extended as for a loss in his ordinary mode of carrying it on. That would make the defendant an insurer of ordinary profits in a new state of the business pushed to a morbid extent, and would put it in the power of the plaintiff to increase the damages to any extent he might think proper. I mention this to show the danger of taking into consideration circumstances posterior to the time when the privilege is fully entered on, and its consequences to the individual to be compensated are ascer tained." To sustain the valuation upon which the present case was founded, the plaintiff in the Thoburn Case should have been permitted to prove, first, the actual value of his physical property, including his land, his cotton mill, machinery, and all his other tangible property, real and personal, and, in addition to that, to prove what the annual profits of his business were, and then to add the principal sum which those profits would represent at 6 per cent. interest to the value of the physical property, and this court would have been bound to declare that the aggregate of these sums was the value of the plain tiff's property before the injury was inflicted. But we not only did not do that, and thereby sanction such an absurd proposition, but declared that the future profits of the plaintiff's business were not to be considered for any purpose whatever, not even to show the diminution in the value of his property, by showing the loss of his future profits, when he was actually driven out of his mill and compelled to quit. doing any business there. As a matter of course, this manner of adding to the value of the actual property the value of future profits, which are entirely uncertain and may never be realized, was altogether illegal, and should never have been permitted. But, bad as this feature of the plaintiff's case was, it was no worse then the other details of what the witnesses chose to describe as damages suffered by the change of grade. When asked to state how the $61,092 of loss was Philadelphia Ball Club, Limited, v. City of Philadelphia made up, they said it was composed in part of $38,082 depreciation in fixtures, $13,000 depreciation in the value of the leasehold, and $10,000 for detention of payment. In making up the $38,082 item, they said it was composed in part of $6,589.63 for regrading the ball field, $9,871.26 for rebuilding right-field seats, $15,543 for rebuilding walls and fences, $1,267 for loss of gate, $1,627 for cost of fences, and a number of smaller items. It is only necessary to deal with the larger items. The depreciation in the value of the leasehold, when described by the witnesses, represented 12 years' loss, at $1,000 per year, resulting from a supposed diminution in the receipts of the business, because the drainage, after the change of grade, was not as perfect as it was before the change. As a matter of course, no such testimony could be permitted, either before or after such a result occurred. But, in point of fact, there was not a particle of testimony to show that there was any diminution of actual receipts to that amount, and it was all a mere guessing estimate of what the loss of profits would be on this account during the whole of the remaining 12 years of the lease. In addition to this, it was affirmatively proved by the plaintiff's witnesses that, instead of a falling off of business during the years following the change of grade, from this or any other cause, there was an actual and large increase in the business. It was represented by the attendance of spectators in constantly advancing numbers, as follows: In 1892, the attendance was 197,574; in 1893, it was 293,924; in 1894, it was 352,773; in 1895, it was 414,891; in 1896, it was 357,025. We dealt with this subject when this case was here before (182 Pa. St. 362, 38 Atl. 357), and then said: "Now, upon comparing the business of 1893 with that of 1892, it will be found that there was a gain of very nearly 50 per cent. over the business of 1892. The business of 1894 showed a gain of just about 65 per cent. over the business of 1892, and of 10.6 per cent. over that of 1893. The business of 1895 showed a gain of more than 100 per cent. over that of 1892, and a little rising of 23 per cent. over that of 1894. Philadelphia Ball Club, Limited, v. City of Philadelphia In this state of the testimony, it is absolutely established by the affirmative and uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff that there was not only no loss of business resulting from the change of grade, but a very large increase of business between the time before and after the change of grade. * * * In this particular case we find there was a positive and very large increase in the business of the club after the change. Hence it is not true that there was or could be a diminution in the value of the plant on account of a loss of business, for the simple reason that there was no loss." On this subject of the loss from inferior drainage, Mr. Rogers, the principal witness for the plaintiff, gave his views of the loss resulting from this source in the following manner : "After those things were done, or ought to have been done, the leasehold estate was depreciated, in my opinion, at least $13,000. Ten thousand dollars of that I think is a conservative estimate as to its injury by reason of the drainage being still very much inferior to the surface drainage that we formerly enjoyed." On cross-examination he said: "The $10,000 was after we had fixed our grounds in the best possible way. We have still a ground-that is, a baseball lease of ground-for twelve years and five months that is worth in the market at least $10,000 less to a purchaser then it would have been if we had had surface drainage." As the witness gave no explanation of his opinion except loss of business, he was asked as to how the business was after the change in the grade of the street was made and before the change in the grade of the field. He said: "The regrading of the playing field began in November or October, 1895, but we did not finish it." He was asked: "Q. You played ball through the year 1893, the change of grade commencing in August, 1893? A. Yes, sir. Q. You did not miss a day during that year, did you? A. The balance of that year; no, I think not. Q. You played ball there the year 1894, did you not? A. Yes, sir, except on certain days when the condition of the ground did not let us. Q. There were three days you have stated during the year 1894 when you did not play ball? A. Philadelphia Ball Club, Limited, v. City of Philadelphia Three days when we were at home that we would have played, but did not play. Q. You played ball all through the year 1895, with the exception of one day? A. One day. *** Q. How many days were you unable to play in the year 1896 on account of defective drainage? A. The club played every game it was scheduled to play in 1896. Q. How many games were you unable to play in 1897 on account of defective drainage? A. One." Thus it seems that no day was lost in 1893, three days were lost in 1894, one day in 1895, none at all in 1896, and one in 1897. For this the city is asked to pay a sum of $10,000, by the testimony of this witness, and $15,000 by that of Shetzline, who was the secretary of the club, because the leasehold would be worth that much less, by reason of the loss of business, when in point of fact the business of the club steadily and largely increased during all the years until 1896. In 1896 and 1897 there was a falling off in the business, and Mr. Rogers explained just how that occurred. He said: "The attendance at our ball games depends mainly on two circumstances, the most important of which is the luck of winning games after a close competition. If you have a close competition with the other clubs, and can win your share of games, the public come out in crowds. If you do not, they religiously stay away in crowds. That is the most important. The next important * * * is having a place where it is the center of transportation facilities. That is the centre of all transportation facilities of this town, having the two main railroads, and all the trolley cars congregating there. In 1896 we played very poor ball indeed,-very wretched, and our attendance went down. In 1897 we did even worse, and our attendance went down." From this testimony it is apparent that loss of business is due to the quality of the play, and that the loss in 1896 and 1897 was due to the bad playing, while the business constantly advanced during all the years. from 1893 to 1895, both inclusive, notwithstanding the condition of the drainage. It follows hence that any inference as to the value of the business at times posterior to the change Philadelphia Ball Club, Limited, v. City of Philadelphia in the grade of the streets has not the least importance, which the law can recognize, in the determination of the question of the difference in the value of the property affected before and after the infliction of the injury. The writer has gone into the analysis of this testimony, not for the sake of showing what the real value of the business done on this property in the years succeeding the change in the grade of the streets was, but for the purpose of illustrating the wisdom of the rule which prohibits all such inquiries in cases of this kind. The business to be done in the future on or with a property which is taken or injured under the power of eminent domain is uncertain, remote, imaginary, entirely incapable of being determined with truthfulness, and the testi mony on such subjects is the result of the personal interest or the friendly bias of the witnesses, and hence necessarily and absolutely unreliable. Ever since the decision of the Thoburn Case, all such inquiries and all such evidence have been positively prohibited, and cannot in any circumstances be permitted to affect the decision of such cases as this. The underlying principle upon which such damage questions must be determined necessarily precludes the consideration of such testimony; for it is a fundamental proposition that the valuation of the property affected must be made immediately before and immediately after the property is taken or the injury is inflicted, and the difference in those valuations is the measure of the damages which the owner may recover. In the present case the change in the grade of the streets was made in August, 1893, and the value of the leasehold at that time, as contrasted with its value in the spring of 1892, when the work was commenced, must represent the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. It was proved by the plaintiff's witnesses that the ball playing went on during the years 1893, 1894, and 1895, just as it had been conducted previously to that time, without any change in the grade of the field, and with a largely increasing business. It was not until three seasons had been finished that any changes were made in the field, and after that time the work was |