Hall v. City of Providence

• Citation: 121 A. 66
• Decision Date: 06 June 1923
• Docket Number: No. 5745.,5745.
• Parties: HALL et al. v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

121 A. 66

HALL et al.

v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE.

No. 5745.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 6, 1923.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; George T. Brown, Judge.

A petition by Charles C. Hall and others for the assessment by a jury of petitioners' damages for the taking of property by the City of Providence in condemnation proceedings. Case transferred on respondent's exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment upon verdict.

Curtis, Matteson, Boss & Letts, Harry C. Curtis, Ira L. Letts, and Pierce H. Brereton, all of Providence, for petitioners.

Elmer S. Chace, City Sol., and Herbert E. Eklund, Asst. City Sol., of Providence, for respondent.

SWEETLAND, C. J. This is a petition for the assessment by jury of the petitioners' damages caused through the taking by the respondent of a tract of land and the improvements thereon which belonged to the petitioner Charles C. Hall. Said taking was in condemnation proceedings under the provisions of chapter 1278 of the Public Laws of 1915, entitled "An act to furnish the city of Providence with a supply of pure water." The petitioner Clara L. Hall, wife of Charles C. Hall, at the time of the taking, had an inchoate right of dower in said property.

The petition was heard before a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury. The jury by its verdict assessed the petitioners' damages at $53,500, with interest. The respondent duly filed a motion for new trial which was denied by said justice. The case is before us upon the respondent's exception to the decision of said justice on the motion for new trial, and upon certain exceptions taken by the respondent to rulings of said justice made in the course of the trial.

It appears that the property in question consisted of a highly improved farm of about 71 acres on which were three well-appointed dwelling houses, a garage, a water supply system, an acetylene gas plant, Icehouse, barns, several young orchards and other appurtenances, the whole constituting a valuable country estate. The property was used for that purpose by Mr. Hall, whom we will hereafter refer to as the petitioner.

A number of the respondent's exceptions are to rulings of said justice permitting the introduction of evidence as to the cost of improvements placed upon the property by the petitioner. This evidence was offered by the petitioner for the purpose of assisting the jury in determining the market value of this property. The measure of damages to be awarded as compensation for property taken in eminent domain proceedings is the market value of the property. The jury were so instructed by the justice presiding.

The exceptions now under consideration involve the question as to whether, in the circumstances of this case, the jury should be permitted, in determining market value, to consider the...