Dickinson v. United States, 5454.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 5454.,5454. |
| Citation | 154 F.2d 642 |
| Parties | DICKINSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Before SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and TIMMERMAN, District Judge.
Alvin T. Embrey, of Fredericksburg, Va., for appellant.
John C. Harrington, Attorney, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (J. Edward Williams, Acting Head, Lands Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., Harry H. Holt, Jr., U. S. Atty., of Norfolk, Va., A. Carter Whitehead, Sp. Asst. to the U. S. Atty., of Richmond, Va., and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
In this condemnation case judgment was entered for the landowner upon the jury's verdict for $7,000 and an appeal was taken because of errors said to have been committed by the District Court in a ruling on the evidence and in refusing a motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence. A witness for the landowner testified that the value of the property when taken by the United States in 1943 was approximately $14,000. On cross examination it was brought out that the witness himself had previously owned the property and had sold it in 1937; but he could not remember the amount of the selling price. Subsequently the United States called a real estate expert who testified that he had examined the county land records and had ascertained that the deed for the property in 1937 bore a revenue stamp which indicated that the selling price was $2,500. After this testimony was given a motion to exclude it was made for the stated reasons that the testimony related to a sale too remote in point of time from the taking by the United States and that the appellant was not a party to the transaction. This motion was overruled and we think that there was no error in the ruling. No objection was made to the testimony on the ground that the land records or a certified copy thereof was the best evidence and should have been produced. Doubtless this could have been done had the point been made. The period of time which had elapsed since the sale in 1937 was undoubtedly substantial, involving as it did the changed conditions of the times, but these circumstances went to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence and were the subject of comment in the argument to the jury on the appellant's behalf. If, as is now suggested as a possibility, the indicated selling price did not represent the value of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Glacier Development Co., L.L.C.
...of property had occurred). Yet there also are cases from other jurisdictions holding the opposite. See, e.g., Dickinson v. United States, 154 F.2d 642 (4th Cir.1946) (6-year-old purchase price; time went to weight, not admissibility, of evidence); Love v. United States, 141 F.2d 981 (8th Ci......
- Dodez v. United States
-
Staninger v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, G-415
...value of such testimony, it is largely within the discretion of the trial court to permit or exclude it. In Dickinson v. United States, 154 F.2d 642 (1946, C.A 4th Va), the challenged testimony related to a sale of the identical property six years prior to the date of taking. The appellate ......
-
United States v. 5139.5 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
...misled as to the value of the timber sold were matters going to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony. Dickinson v. United States, 4 Cir., 154 F.2d 642; United States v. Ham, 8 Cir., 187 F.2d 265; United States v. Becktold, 8 Cir., 129 F.2d 473; Thornton v. Birmingham, 250 A......