Friday v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1903
• Docket Number: 18
• Citation: 54 A. 339,204 Pa. 405
• Parties: Friday v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

54 A. 339

204 Pa. 405

Friday v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant

No. 18

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 5, 1903

Argued October 27, 1902

Appeal, No. 18, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1900, No. 679, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Elizabeth F. Friday v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Reversed.

Appeal from jury of view. Before STOWE, P.J.

At the trial the court admitted under objection and exception the opinions of various witnesses offered as expert, as to values. [1-9]

The qualifications of these witnesses are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court charged in part as follows:

[We have in this case, gentlemen, -- and we have no reason to believe that there was a man brought on the stand that did not tell you just exactly what he believed -- on the one side we have it running from $60,000 to $75,000 and $80,000, as the probable selling value of this property, what it would probably bring. On the other hand, we have it running from $200,000 to $275,000, probably a little more. One witness when asked, said that he thought it was worth $235,000, and there was one witness who said, I believe, that he would give $250,000 for it, whether he had the money or not. But he said so, and the evidence is for you to consider; because if a man is able to pay for property at the price fixed, where he satisfies you that he is able and willing to pay that price when the question of values comes up, it is some evidence as to what it would fairly bring, because if he would give it it would fetch it; but that kind of testimony is to be looked at carefully, and should have very slight weight, because if we do not know ourselves what we would be able to do, it is not of much value. I might be willing to give $100,000 for a piece of property very gladly if I had the money, but if I did not have it, I might not be able to buy it. So I merely suggest it to you as indicating that, while it is not conclusive as to what the property is worth, and while it may be considered, it is not to be considered absolutely as indicating to the jury what they ought to render a verdict for.]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $233,994. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were (1-9) rulings on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions; (10) portions of charge as above.

The judgment is reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Thomas Patterson, with him James R. Sterrett and M. W. Acheson, Jr., for appellant. -- The witnesses offered as experts were not properly qualified: Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325; Michael v. Crescent Pipe Line Company, 159 Pa. 99; Mewes v. Crescent Pipe Line Company, 170 Pa. 364.

Defendant's counsel had the right to cross-examine the witnesses produced upon values on the part of the plaintiff, for the purpose of ascertaining their qualifications in advance of an expression of opinion by them to the jury: Michael v. Crescent Pipe Line Co., 159 Pa. 99; First Nat. Bank of Easton v. Wirebach, 12 W.N.C. 150.

The charge was erroneous: Balt. & Phila. R.R. Co. v. Springer, 21 W.N.C. 143; Penna. S.V.R.R. Co. v. Cleary, 125 Pa. 442.

Walter Lyon, with him Charles H. McKee and H. Walton Mitchell, for appellee. -- The witnesses were competent: Del., etc., Steam Towboat Co. v. Starrs, 69 Pa. 36; Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 Pa. 146; Allen's App., 99 Pa. 196; Ryder v. Jacobs, 182 Pa. 624; O'Brien v. Schenley Park, etc., Ry. Co., 194 Pa. 336.

We deny that at every step of the trial where the question of competency arises, the defense has a right to indulge in cross-examination: Penna. R.R. & Canal Co. v. Bunnell, 81 Pa. 414; Struthers v. Philadelphia & Delaware County R.R., 174 Pa. 291; Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 Pa. 146; Dorlan v. East Brandywine, etc., R.R. Co., 46 Pa. 520.

Before MITCHELL, DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT and POTTER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE POTTER:

This appeal is from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, fixing the market value of a certain property situated at the corner of Eleventh street and Liberty avenue in the city of Pittsburg. The assignments of error challenge the competency of certain witnesses, who testified on behalf of the plaintiff. It is contended that they did not show sufficient knowledge of the subject-matter of the inquiry, to qualify them to give an opinion as to the value of the property in question.

The knowledge which is essential to qualify a witness to testify as to land values, is clearly defined in Pittsburg, etc., Railway Company v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325, and reiterated in Michael v. Crescent Pipe Line Co., 159 Pa. 99. The requirements imply familiarity upon the part of the witness with the property in question, its area, and the uses to which it may reasonably be applied, and the extent and condition of its improvements. But this is not all. Another essential, by reason of the necessity for comparison, is a knowledge of the general selling price of ground in the neighborhood at the time. In fixing this, regard must be had also to the rule, that the general selling price is not to be shown by evidence of particular sales, of alleged similar lots, but is to be fixed in the mind of the witness, from a knowledge of the price at which lots are generally held for sale, and at which they are sometimes actually sold, in the course of ordinary business in the neighborhood. While not easy to define with accuracy, yet there is such a thing as market value. And in an inquiry such as the present, this is to be ascertained from the testimony of those, who by special knowledge, or opportunity for observation, are in possession of the data from which a proper estimate can be made.

Testimony for this purpose should not be accepted against objection, upon the mere assertion of a witness that he knows the values. His averment should be tested, by having him designate the properties in the vicinity with which he is acquainted, and set forth the source of his knowledge of their values; he should be able to give a satisfactory reason for his opinion, and show that it rests upon a substantial foundation, and is not a mere guess. The rule is clearly laid down in Michael v. Pipe Line Company, supra, that in establishing the competency of witnesses called to give an opinion as to the market value of land, it must affirmatively appear that they have the requisite personal knowledge of the subject-matter of the inquiry, and the source, extent and character of that knowledge must be satisfactorily shown. These requirements were not met in the case of a number of the witnesses called upon the part of the plaintiff, and if their competency be measured by this standard, they fall short. They were lacking in knowledge of the general market value of neighboring property, or if they possessed that knowledge, the fact was not made to appear.

For instance, Mr. C. F. Klopfer testified, that he thought he had a knowledge of the valuation of property in the neighborhood but did not exhibit in any particular the extent, source or character of his...