Conness v. Com.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1904
• Citation: 184 Mass. 541,69 N.E. 341
• Parties: CONNESS v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

184 Mass. 541

69 N.E. 341

CONNESS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 7, 1904

COUNSEL

Moorefield Storey and Ezra R. Thayer, for petitioner.

Robert G. Dodge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The questions in this case relate to the admissibility of the testimony of two witnesses called by the petitioner as experts to testify in regard to damages to real estate. One of them, so far as appears, had no knowledge of the prices at which land was bought and sold in the vicinity of the land taken by the respondent, nor hardly any knowledge of the prices of land in other places. The other testified that he was 'perfectly familiar with values in Dorchester and other places around Boston for manufacturing purposes, but not for any other purposes, and had nothing to do with any other purposes.' Both of these witnesses were mechanical engineers who were familiar with the use of steam and water power, and with mills of various kinds in many places. They were competent to give an opinion on the question whether the petitioner's property was adapted to use as a site for a mill, but their testimony tended to show that they had been occupied chiefly with mechanical subjects in connection with mills, rather than with prices or values. After they had testified that the petitioner's property was well adapted for a mill site, one of the witnesses was allowed to answer the question, 'What is the fair market value of this combination of the site here with the water for the purposes of a rubber business?' and to say that it would be worth $50,000 for such a mill site. The other witness gave similar testimony. The respondent objected to the questions and answers, both in form and substance, and saved exceptions.

The subject thus presented was considered in Cochrane v Commonwealth, 175 Mass. 299, 56 N.E. 610, 78 Am. St Rep. 491, and similar questions have arisen in previous cases. The sum to be awarded for real estate taken is the fair market value of the property, having reference to all the uses to which it is adapted. Its value for any special purpose is not the test, although it may be considered, with a view of ascertaining what the property is worth in the market for any use for which it would bring the most. Moulton v. Newburyport Water Company, 137 Mass. 163-167; Providence & Worcester Railroad Company v Worcester, 155 Mass. 35-42, 29 N.E. 56; Teele v. Boston, 165 Mass. 88-92, 42 N.E. 506; Maynard v. Northampton, 157 Mass. 219, 31 N.E. 1062; Fales v. Easthampton, 162 Mass. 422, 38 N.E. 1129; Butchers' Association v. Commonwealth, 169 Mass. 103-118, 47 N.E. 599. In the case first mentioned, while it was decided that there may be trials in which it is necessary to receive the testimony of witnesses who have little or no knowledge of prices in the neighborhood where the taking occurred, some of the objections to such testimony were mentioned; and it was said that 'for these reasons the usual rule should be departed from, and testimony of this kind admitted only when without it it is impossible to prove the value of the property in question.' Such testimony is almost necessarily affected largely by the peculiar conditions and the nature of the management of some particular business with which the witness is acquainted. In the present case the first witness testified...