158 Mass. 278 (1893), Howe v. Howard

• Citation: 158 Mass. 278, 33 N.E. 528
• Opinion Judge: BARKER, J.
• Party Name: HOWE v. HOWARD.
• Attorney: [33 N.E. 528] Sidney A. Phillips, for plaintiff. Ira B. Forbes and Edwin A. Alger, for defendant.
• Case Date: March 03, 1893
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 278

158 Mass. 278 (1893)

33 N.E. 528

HOWE

v.

HOWARD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 3, 1893

COUNSEL

[33 N.E. 528] Sidney

A. Phillips, for plaintiff.

Ira B. Forbes and Edwin A. Alger, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER, J.

Assuming that the land taken by the commonwealth was similar to and in the same vicinity with that the value of which was in issue, and that the taking was sufficiently near in point of time to make evidence of a sale competent under the familiar rule stated in Chandler v. Jamaica Pond

Page 279

Aqueduct Corp., 122 Mass. 305,[33 N.E. 529] testimony as to the amount received by its owner as damages awarded by a jury for its taking was incompetent. In Wyman v. Railroad Co., 13 Metc. (Mass.) 316, 326, Dewey, J., after deciding that evidence of an actual sale of adjacent land was competent, said that, "if it had been a price fixed by a jury, or in any way compulsorily paid by the party, the evidence of such payment would be inadmissible." A price so fixed represents only the opinion of those who make it, and, as the grounds and reasons of their opinion are not known, and they cannot be presumed to have been qualified experts, and cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the parties whose rights the evidence will affect, their opinion is not competent evidence to show the value of other land. In White v. Railroad Co., 4 Cush. 440, it was held that...