Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Russell
| Decision Date | 10 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-3736,5-3736 |
| Citation | 240 Ark. 21,398 S.W.2d 201 |
| Parties | ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Guy C. RUSSELL et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Mark E. Woolsey, Thomas B. Keys, Little Rock, for appellant.
Lookadoo, Gooch & Lookadoo, Arkadelphia, for appellees.
This is an action by the State Highway Commission to condemn, in fee simple, a 28.2-acre strip across the appellees' cattle ranch. The jury fixed the landowners' damages at $26,000. The Commission's principal contention for reversal is that the trial court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of Guy C. Russell, who, together with his wife, owns the land.
On direct examination Russell explained in detail the damage that he would suffer as a result of the condemnation. He valued his property at $82,800 before the taking and at $40,350 after the taking. He considered the strip actually being taken to be worth $11,200 (about $400 an acre). He attributed most of his damage, however, to the fact that the controlled-access highway to be constructed will divide his ranch into two tracts effectively separated by the proposed highway. Instead of being able to go directly from one side of his ranch to the other it will be necessary for him to travel at least four miles to cross the highway. As a practical matter Russell will be forced to operate his property as two separate ranches, with the equipment and other facilities on one side of the highway being duplicated on the other side, whereas such duplication was not necessary before the ranch was cut in two. A similar fact situation was presented in Arkansas State Highway Comm. v. Union Planters Nat. Bank, 231 Ark. 907, 333 S.W.2d 904 (1960), where we observed that the controlledaccess highway would bisect a plantation 'as effectively as if a high stone wall had been erected down the center of the property.'
On cross examination the attorney for the highway commission elicited an admission from Russell that the Arkadelphia Country Club had offered him $375 an acre for part of his land and that he had taken this offer into consideration in arriving at his conclusion that the property as a whole was worth $82,800 before the taking. Counsel for the commission, after having drawn this admission from the witness, at once asked the court to strike the witness's testimony about the value of the property before the taking, on the ground that Russell had taken an inadmissible offer into consideration in forming his opinion. The court denied the motion to strike. It is now insisted, upon the authority of Arkansas State Highway Comm. v. Wilmans, 236 Ark. 945, 370 S.W.2d 802 (1963), that the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion.
We are decidedly of the view that the commission's contention is untenable. This land has been owned by the Russell family for many years. The present owner, the appellee Guy C. Russell, was intimately familiar with the property and was unquestionably qualified to state his opinion about its value. Arkansas State Highway Comm. v. Muswick Cigar & Beverage Co., 231 Ark. 265, 329 S.W.2d 173 (1959). There is no suggestion that any part of his testimony on direct examination was inadmissible. The appellant argues, however, that his testimony should have been stricken simply because he conceded on cross examination that he had taken into consideration an offer--an offer that would not have been admissible had his attorney tried to bring it out during the direct examination of his client.
It is at once apparent that if we sustain the commission's contention it will hardly be possible in the future for a landowner or an expert witness to give an admissible opinion about the value of property. In nearly every instance a landowner who has known his land for years, or an expert witness who has acquainted himself with a piece of property, takes into account facts that he knows only by hearsay or that for some other reason would not be admissible as independent evidence upon the examination in chief. If the witness's candid admission that he has considered such matters destroys his testimony, only a dishonest or an ill-informed witness can give an admissible opinion about the value of property.
The overwhelming weight of authority is contrary to the appellant's present contention. It has repeatedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency v. Thirteen Parcels of Land in Squares 859, 912, 934 and 4068 in District of Columbia
...value." Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Mullens, 255 Ark. 796, 797, 502 S.W.2d 626, 627 (1973). See also Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Russell, 240 Ark. 21, 398 S.W.2d 201 (1966) (disclosure of questionable basis for owner's testimony affects the weight of the testimony). The owner does......
-
Beed v. State
...the hazards of such a procedure which include answers which would not be admissible as direct testimony. Arkansas State Highway Com'n v. Russell, 240 Ark. 21, 398 S.W.2d 201; Arkansas State Highway Com'n v. Fowler, 240 Ark. 595, 401 S.W.2d Another instance of the alleged improper restrictio......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of America
...appellant demonstrated that Farris had no fair and reasonable basis for his value. As pointed out in Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Russell, 240 Ark. 21, 398 S.W.2d 201 (1966), where the testimony shows only a weak or questionable basis for the opinion of the expert, the issue becomes......
-
Lindsey v. Forrest City, 75--345
...taking cases such as Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Wilmans, 236 Ark. 945, 370 S.W.2d 802, and Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Russell, 240 Ark. 21, 398 S.W.2d 201. In the former, we held that a motion to strike only the 'before values' given by a witness should have been granted......