City of Baltimore v. Himmel
Decision Date | 25 June 1919 |
Docket Number | 38. |
Citation | 107 A. 522,135 Md. 65 |
Parties | MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. HIMMEL et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; James M. Ambler, Judge.
Condemnation proceedings by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore against Moses L. Himmel and others. From a judgment favoring defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial awarded.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and ADKINS, JJ.
George Arnold Frick and S. S. Field, both of Baltimore, for appellant.
Joseph N. Ulman and Edgar Allen Poe, both of Baltimore (Knapp, Ulman & Tucker and Bartlett, Poe & Claggett, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
The mayor and city council of Baltimore instituted proceedings for the condemnation in fee of eleven pieces of property for use in connection with the establishment by the city of a civic center. A portion of the property was subject to ground rent. By their inquisition the jury found the damages which would be sustained by the owners of the entire property by the taking, use, and occupation by the city to be $283,500. The value of the ground rents (which was fixed by agreement and about which there is no question in this case) was found to be $15,230. The balance, $268,270, was awarded to the other owners. The appeal before us was taken from the judgment entered on the inquisition by the Baltimore city court.
The property condemned is located in the block bounded by Frederick, Lexington, Harrison, and Fayette streets, and contains about one-half of the block. Eight pieces of this property are improved and three are unimproved. The entire property condemned was used and occupied by the appellees as a manufacturing plant for the manufacture of furniture. The business was an old, well-established, and quite an extensive one. The property is located in a manufacturing section of the city, on good streets, and of easy access to wharves and railroads. The buildings are well adapted to the land and the locality, and are so connected up as to enable the owners to use them all as useful and separate units in the prosecution of their business. Expensive and suitable machinery was installed upon the property-boilers, engines, a sprinkler and heating system, shafting, motors, elevators, electric wiring plumbing, etc. Some of this mechanical equipment was permanently attached to the soil, and others of it could not be detached without greatly injuring it. The evidence shows that the appellees were the owners of a large, valuable, and well-equipped manufacturing plant.
Neither of these witnesses placed any value on the machinery or other mechanical equipment other than that mentioned by Mr. Gilbert. These witnesses furnished the principal evidence on the part of the city to prove the value of the property taken. Mr. Gilbert valued the entire interest in fee at $150,230, Mr. Boulden at $148,390.83, and Mr. Pue's valuation was $135,596.
The landowners pursued, in one respect, a totally different method of arriving at the fair value of the property. They called James Carey Martien, William E. Ferguson, and Charles H. Steffey, each competent real estate experts, and each gave his valuation of the land embraced in the condemnation. Mr. Martien valued it at $72,877 in fee; Mr. Ferguson at $68,328.32; Mr. Steffey at $73,910. Mr. Martien and Mr. Steffey said the buildings upon the property were well adapted to the land and the surroundings, and that the property was being used for its highest utility. These witnesses, although familiar with the character of the buildings, expressed no opinion as to the amount they added to the value of the land, but said their structural value represented a fairly proportionate enhancement in the market value of the land, and that the accurate or best method to determine the value of the property, where it was improved, as this was, to its highest utility, is to ascertain through the real estate broker the value of the ground, and through the builders the value of the improvements. The appellees then called Otto G. Simonson, an architect of high qualifications and wide experience in his profession, and R. B. Mason, a contractor and builder of 40 years' experience. Each of these witnesses was familiar with the buildings upon the land, and each testified as to the structural or reproduction value at the present time, with what they considered due allowance for depreciation. Mr. Simonson estimated the reproduction value to be $255,351.42, and Mr. Mason's valuation was $287,532.11. Other witnesses, upon the same principle, fixed a value upon the boilers, engines, and other items of equipment which the appellees claimed to be fixtures.
Upon the testimony produced by the appellees, as we have outlined it, arises one of the principal questions in the case. It is this: Was evidence of structural or reproduction value, with due allowance for depreciation, admissible in this case to show market value? This question is raised by the seventh, eighth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twentieth bills of exceptions. In McGaw v. Baltimore City, 131 Md. 430, 102 A. 544, decided in 1917, the lower court, by an instruction, directed "the jury to disregard the testimony of the appellant's witness as to the costs of constructing the building at the present time." This ruling was held to be reversible error. In discussing the question of the admissibility of evidence of structural value in condemnation cases the court stated the general rule to be:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burllson v. Watson
...as an admission or to contradict his testimony regarding a different value. Patch v. Boston, 146 Mass. 52, 14 N.E. 770; Baltimore City v. Himmel, 135 Md. 65, 107 A. 522. However, that question is not before us, and it is not decided. In the present case the official valuation was the basis ......