Gearhart v. Clear Spring Water Co.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | 344 |
| Parties | Gearhart v. Clear Spring Water Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 11, 1902
Appeal, No. 344, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Monroe Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 16, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Cicero Gearhart v. Clear Spring Water Company. Affirmed.
Appeal from report of viewers. Before CRAIG, P.J.
At the trial Stewart Flagler was asked this question:
Mr Palmer: Objected to for the reason that it has not been shown in this case that the tract of land in question could have been used for ice purposes.
Mr Palmer: The question is objected to by the defendant for the reason that the witness has not shown himself to be properly qualified as a competent witness upon real estate values to answer the question. The rule is that the market value to answer the question. The rule is that the market value is estimated upon a fair consideration of the land, the extent and condition of its improvements, its quantity and productive qualities and the uses to which it may reasonably be applied, taken with the general selling price of lands in the neighborhood at the time. In order to take into consideration the general selling price of lands in the neighborhood at the time, the witness must show that he knows such selling price by knowing of sales which have taken place and the prices which they brought and that the lands were similar to the lands in question and that he received his information from the buyer or the seller. This witness has sworn that he only knows of three sales of land in Jackson township, two of them to the defendant company. He can't tell the acreage of the one nor the price of the other and he does not know who told him about either sale. The third sale he knows of in Jackson township, he can't tell the acreage, he doesn't know the seller, he does not know the character of the land, he does not know how much it brought and he received no information relative to it from either the buyer or the seller. The information which he has as to sales in other parts of the county are as to sales too far remote from the lands in question, nor are they lands similar to the lands in question. In addition to these objections the witness has not shown that he knows the uses to which the tract of land may reasonably be applied.
The Court: The objection overruled and bill sealed for the defendant. [5]
Amzi B Wyckoff was asked this question:
"Q. Now, Mr. Wyckoff, from your general knowledge of the price of lands, your opinion in regard to the value of lands in the township of Jackson, and from your knowledge of similar pieces of land used for similar purposes, in and connected with the ice plants on the Pocono mountain, what in your opinion was the market value of this piece of nine acres and fifty perches, appropriated and condemned by the Clear Spring Water Company?
Mr. Palmer: Objected to by the defendant for the reason that the witness has not shown himself properly qualified to answer the question. He does not have a sufficient knowledge of the market value of lands in the neighborhood to give an opinion as to the market value of the land in question. He has sworn that he knows of no sales in Jackson township, and only knows of two options; in other words he knows only of the prices at which two landholders held their lands. He has also testified that the conditions on the Pocono mountain are essentially different from the conditions at Reeders, and that an estimate of value based upon such knowledge would not help a man much to fix the market value at a lower point of elevation.
The Court: I am disposed to admit the evidence. Objection overruled and bill sealed for defendant. [8]
Isaiah Butts was asked this question:
"Q. Then Mr. Butts, don't you think that the advantageous position of that piece of land, as it there lay, necessary for the formation of this pool, gave it a market value far above what it might be used for in an ordinary way?
Mr. Palmer: Objected to for the reason that the only test is the market value of this piece of land. The witness has sworn that he bases his estimate of the market value upon the selling price of other lands in that neighborhood, some of which were just as necessary to the construction of this dam as shown by the evidence, as the lands in question.
The court charged in part as follows:
[If, however, at that time, it was adapted for ice purposes, was ripe for it, under the general surroundings and conditions of things as they existed there, then you may take that into consideration in forming the general market value in this case.
As I said to you, gentlemen of the jury, the whole contention of both sides seems to assume that the property was in that condition and the simple question is as to the evidence bearing upon this market value; under those conditions the one side contending that it did not exceed $400, the other side contending that it did not exceed $5,000.]
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $3,000. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were (4, 5, 8, 15) rulings on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions; (18) portion of charge as above, quoting...
To continue reading
Request your trial