Burnett v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irr. Dist.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1942
• Docket Number: No. 12006.,12006.
• Citation: 125 F.2d 836
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
• Parties: BURNETT et ux. v. CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER & IRRIGATION DIST.

125 F.2d 836 (1942)

BURNETT et ux. v. CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER & IRRIGATION DIST.

No. 12006.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 19, 1942.

William H. Wright, of Omaha, Neb. (F. A. Wright, of Omaha, Neb., and G. J. McGinley, of Ogallala, Neb., on the brief), for appellants.

M. M. Maupin, of Ogallala, Neb. (R. O. Canaday and P. E. Boslaugh, both of Hastings, Neb., and R. H. Beatty, of North Platte, Neb., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STONE, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSEN, Circuit Judge.

In a proceeding under 41 Stat. 1074, 16 U.S.C.A. § 814, to condemn lands for a reservoir site along the Platte River in Nebraska, the appraisers awarded appellants damages of $62,903, but, on an appeal by both parties to the District Court, the jury returned a verdict for only $53,326.75, and appellants have appealed to this Court from the judgment entered on the verdict.

The only question before us is whether the verdict as a whole is arbitrary and capricious, or whether there is substantial evidence to support it.

The property involved was a 2,566.94 acre ranch, located in Keith County, Nebraska. Of this, 854.92 acres were directly appropriated by the condemnation, and the remainder was claimed to have been consequentially damaged. Four experts, testifying on behalf of appellants, estimated the total damages, direct and consequential, at from $101,228.16 to $119,430.76. Five experts for appellee made estimates of from $40,178.36 to $49,599.50. There was evidence showing the character of the land, the kind and quantity of the crops which it had produced, the amount of income ordinarily derived from it, and the price at which appellants had purchased the property, with the date and the comparative conditions existing at the time of the purchase. No question is raised here as to the competency of any of this evidence for jury consideration. In addition, the jury was allowed to visit and inspect the property.

The verdict returned was a general one for the whole amount of the damages sustained, but, by special interrogatories submitted at appellants' request, the jury was asked to indicate, among other things, the value of two specific tracts of 75.83 and 160.01 acres respectively, which were part of the total 854.92 acres of land taken. In answer to one of these special interrogatories, the jury fixed a value of $758.30 on the 75.83 acre tract, whereas the lowest estimate of any expert for appellee was $874.44, and that of any expert for appellants was $1,516.60. Because the value thus fixed by the jury upon this 75.83 acre tract was $116.14 lower than the estimate of any expert for either side, it is contended that the whole verdict of $53,326.75 must be regarded as being arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to the evidence.

Testimony as to the market value of land cannot soundly be regarded as anything more than an expression of opinion. Byers v. Federal Land Co., 8 Cir., 3 F.2d 9, 11. Of this fact, the range of values testified to by the experts in this case, from $40,178.36 to $119,430.76, is a complete demonstration. In such a common field, a jury cannot be required to substitute the opinion of expert witnesses for its own practical judgment on...