Bartlett v. City of Medford
| Decision Date | 21 May 1925 |
| Citation | 252 Mass. 311,147 N.E. 739 |
| Parties | BARTLETT v. CITY OF MEDFORD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Patrick M. Keating, Judge.
Petition by William F. Bartlett for assessment of damages for taking of real estate by City of Medford. On respondent's exceptions after verdict for petitioner. Exceptions overruled.
L. Withington, of Boston (C. B. Cross, of Boston, on the brief), for petitioner.
L. G. Brooks, of Boston, for respondent.
This is a petition for the assessment of damages caused by a taking of real estate by the defendant on July 8, 1924, to widen Salem street and Riverside avenue in Medford. The petitioner's property, consisting of 5,285 square feet of land with a brick building thereon, was located at the corner of the two streets. The city took 2,073 feet of this land and rendered valueless the portion of the building which remained after the taking.
[1] The testimony of the plaintiff tended to prove that before the taking his front land was worth $18 and his back land $16 per square foot, and after the taking that his remaining land was worth $14.35 per square foot; while the testimony of the respondent tended to show that the fair market value of the land before the taking was $4 to $5 per square foot and the value of the land remaining was not changed by the taking. In support of his contention that his remaining land was damaged, the petitioner, subject to the defendant's exception, introduced testimony that this land was sold by him in October, 1924, for $45,200, or at the rate of $14.07 per square foot. This testimony was properly admitted. Evidence of sales made after the date of a taking, has been held to be competent. Manning v. Lowell, 173 Mass. 100, 53 N. E. 160;Peabody v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 187 Mass. 489, 73 N. E. 649. The fact that the price for the property was paid in large part by mortgages did not affect the competency of the testimony, provided the sale was a genuine one. Fourth National Bank v. Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 66, 98 N. E. 686. Sufficient testimony was introduced to justify a finding that the transaction was a genuine sale; and the trial judge instructed the jury that it was for them to say whether they believed the testimony in regard to this sale and that if they found it to be a genuine sale they might consider it on the question of the fair market value of the remaining land after the taking, but not as bearing on the value of the petitioner's land before the taking. They were further instructed that, if they found that the amount paid at this sale was increased by the proposed widening of Salem street and Riverside avenue, they should not consider such increased value in arriving at the value of the petitioner's property. The judge did not have the duty of deciding that the sale was a genuine one, but only that enough testimony was offered of its genuineness to make the evidence competent for the consideration of the jury. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 146 Mass. 571, 580, 16 N. E. 452.
[2] A ruling admitting testimony means, even in the case where a statute requiries a preliminary finding of facts, that all the findings required...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.
...this conflicting testimony it was the exclusive province of the jury to decide what testimony they would believe. Bartlett v. Medford, 252 Mass. 311, 315,147 N. E. 739. One of the bags containing the scrap film was taken by Bowditch to his father's place of business. Shirley, intending to t......
-
Fauci v. Mulready
...Inc., 334 Mass. 370, 374, 135 N.E.2d 660; Compare Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165, 168-170, 128 N.E. 33; Bartlett v. City of Medford, 252 Mass. 311, 312-313, 147 N.E. 739. The 'best evidence' rule, here involved, 'at common law is a preferential, rather than an exclusionary rule.' See comme......
-
Covina Union High School Dist. of Los Angeles County v. Jobe
...must be granted a wide discretion.' See, also, County of Los Angeles v. Hoe, 138 Cal.App.2d 74, 80, 291 P.2d 98; Bartlett v. City of Medford, 252 Mass. 311, 147 N.E. 739. (Emphasis added.) We should not assume that the trial court abused its discretion. In fact the rule is exactly the oppos......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Wertz
...after the taking; the other twenty months thereafter--were admissible in evidence. This decision was followed in Bartlett v. City of Medford, 1925, 252 Mass. 311, 147 N.E. 739. See also Morrison v. Cottonwood Development Co., 1928, 38 Wyo. 190, 266 P. 117, 121; Pauly v. State, 1958, 14 Misc......