Atwater Kent Mfg. Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 31 December 1943
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1613.
• Citation: 53 F. Supp. 472
• Parties: ATWATER KENT MFG. CO. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

53 F. Supp. 472

ATWATER KENT MFG. CO. v. UNITED STATES.

Civil Action No. 1613.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

December 31, 1943.

Russell Conwell Cooney (of Mancill, Cooney & Ott), of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

C. James Todaro, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

BARD, District Judge.

Defendant, the United States of America, filed a motion for a new trial, following a jury verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $190,000.

Plaintiff, Atwater Kent Manufacturing Company, was the owner of 19.6964 acres of land situated in Philadelphia. This land was acquired by condemnation proceedings by the United States for public use.

The issue at the trial was the value of the land at the time of taking on June 30, 1941. For the plaintiff, witness Solis-Cohen valued the land at $235,000, witness Massey at $236,350, and witness Mueller at $226,481. For the defendant, witness Priestman valued the land at $100,000, and witness Johnson at $88,600.

No exceptions were taken to the Court's instructions to the jury. Defendant contends, however, that "the court erred in denying the Government's objection to the competency of the witness Harold P. Mueller, and its two motions to strike his testimony."

Mr. Mueller testified that he is a registered professional engineer, a graduate of Purdue University; for approximately twenty years he has been in the building business in the Philadelphia area, during which period he built approximately 2,000 houses, and in that business had occasion to purchase real estate, develop real estate, and sell houses to home buyers; that he was familiar with the ground taken in this case by the government; was familiar with the cost of ground in this general area; had inspected the ground for several weeks at the time of the taking. After the government took the ground, and before any changes were made, he inspected the ground minutely with the view of submitting a bid for work upon the ground. He testified that he was familiar with certain sales in the vicinity and mentioned them by name. He was familiar with all sales and purchases of ground in the locality during that period, and he was familiar with the lines and grades of the property, with the street improvements that bounded the property, the width of the streets surrounding the property and the zoning regulations affecting the property. In fixing the value he took into consideration the surrounding area of this property, the industries and homes that surrounded the property, the sales of comparable property in that area, his knowledge of sales gained by twenty years experience in Philadelphia, the transportation facilities available, and the available facilities of schools and churches. Considering all these factors, he placed a value upon the ground at the time of taking of $226,481.

The defendant's contention cannot be sustained. The testimony of the witness Mueller was competent and of assistance to the jury in determining the fair compensation to be awarded the land owner. The witness was examined and cross-examined preliminarily as to his competency and I think he met the test as defined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Markowitz v. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 216 Pa. 535, 537, 65 A. 1097, 1098: "We have said that an essential test of the competency of witnesses, called to give an opinion as to the market value of land, is that they affirmatively appear to have actual personal knowledge of the facts affecting the subject-matter of the inquiry. Michael v. Crescent Pipe Line Co., supra 159 Pa. 99, 28 A. 204. The witness should have some special opportunity for observation, and, to a reasonable extent, have in his mind the data from which a proper estimate of value ought to be made. Pittsburgh V. & C. Ry. Co. v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325, 8 A. 764. He should be familiar with the property upon which he is asked to fix a value, its area, the uses to which it may be put, the extent and condition of its improvements, and, in addition thereto, should have some knowledge of values in the neighborhood and the general selling price of property in the locality at or near the time of the appropriations. Friday v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 204 Pa. 405, 54 A. 339. As we read the testimony of the witnesses whose competency has been objected to, these requirements have been reasonably met." See also Pittsburg, V. & C. Ry. Co. v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325, 332, 8 A. 764; Reed v. Pittsburg, C. & W. R. Co., 210 Pa. 211, 213, 59 A. 1067.

The witness was then examined and cross-examined within the scope of the language of Mr. Justice Simpson defining the rule of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in McSorley v. School Dist. of Avalon Borough, 291 Pa. 252,...