Cochrane v. Com.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1900
• Citation: 56 N.E. 610,175 Mass. 299
• Parties: COCHRANE v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

175 Mass. 299

56 N.E. 610

COCHRANE v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

February 28, 1900

COUNSEL

J. M. Hallowell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the the commonwealth brings exceptions.

Overruled.

OPINION

LORING J.

The only exception presented in this case is that to the admission of the testimony of Kelsey L. Gilmore. The petition was brought to recover damages sustained by reason of a taking of the right to maintain a sewer through the land of the petitioner under the metropolitan sewer act (St. 1895, c. 406). The land of the petitioner was situated on each side of a stream known as 'Mother Brook,' running through a channel originally constructed in 1640, and connecting the Charles and Neponset rivers, and through which a large amount of water ran from the Charles to the Neponset. The line of the commonwealth's taking was more or less parallel with the line of the brook, and ran through the petitioner's land from one end of it to the other. The petitioner introduced evidence tending to show 'that the plaintiff's property was valuable as a mill site, and that its value was largely derived from the fact that the relation between the stream and the adjoining land made it possible to send a large quantity of water by gravity through any building that might be erected on the premises; that the quantity and quality of the water supply made the site especially valuable for any manufacturing business where a large quantity of water was needed for cleansing or like purposes, such as bleaching, dyeing, and printing factory, or a paper mill; that the value of a mill site for manufacturing purposes did not depend on the value of real estate for general purposes in the neighborhood; and that some of the most valuable mill sites were remote from any town. The petitioner called various expert witnesses including manufacturers and mill engineers. The engineers testified to the injury caused to the property by the sewer taking, arising from the additional difficulty and expense necessitated in the construction and location of mill buildings, and the subsequent conduct of a manufacturing business.' Among other witnesses, the petitioner called Kelsey L. Gilmore, who testified that he lived in Lexington Mass., and had been engaged in the city of Somerville for 41 years in the business of bleaching, dyeing, printing, and finishing cotton goods; that he bought the mill in which he was manufacturing in Somerville in 1878; that he never bought any other mill or mill site, and never sold a mill or mill site; that he did not know of purchases or sales of mill sites; that he had examined the land of the petitioner in question with reference to forming an opinion as to its availability for a site for a mill for bleaching, dyeing, cleansing, and printing; that it was a very fine spot for a mill of that kind, on account of the supply of water which it had, and the fact that the land of the petitioner was land lying below the head of the water giving sufficient room for buildings, so that the water could flow through without pumping; that, from his experience, he knew what the value of a place of that kind is as a site for a mill for bleaching, dyeing, cleansing, and printing; that he had made no investigation, in the neighborhood or elsewhere, as to what the value of this site was for a mill of the kind described, or as to the value of this combination of land and water, but he had his own opinion about it from his own experience. The court ruled: 'If the witness states that he is familiar with the values of properties of this sort,--of this kind,--although for a particular purpose, I do not think his testimony incompetent. I think, if he can say that he is familiar generally with the value of property of this kind, that he may testify.' The witness was then asked: 'Please state, in your opinion, what the value of that combination there,--that land and water there---- What is the value--the fair market value--of this combination of land here with the water power for the purposes of a printing business?' and answered: 'I should think that with...