Housing Authority of City of Little Rock v. Winston, 5-1083

Citation295 S.W.2d 621,226 Ark. 1037
Decision Date26 November 1956
Docket NumberNo. 5-1083,5-1083
PartiesHOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas, Appellant, v. Bordie WINSTON et al., Appellees.
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

R. Ben Allen and William L. Terry, Little Rock, for appellant.

Gordon H. Sullivan and Harry C. Robinson, Little Rock, for appellees.

WARD, Justice.

The only question presented by this appeal is: Is there sufficient, competent testimony to support the chancellor's finding that appellees' property was worth $2,000?

On August 25, 1955, appellant, Housing Authority of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas [authorized and existing under authority of Act 298 of 1937 and amendatory acts], filed a suit in the circuit court against Bordie Winston and his wife [together with many other property owners], asking that said appellees' property [Lot 1 Block 44, Granite Park Addition to Little Rock] be condemned and that the money damages for the taking of said property be ascertained.

Because of certain issues arising in the circuit court relative to title to said property and also a written agreement as to damages the cause was transferred to the chancery court. Upon hearing before the chancellor the two issues mentioned above were discarded and the chancellor heard testimony as to the value of the property in question, and thereupon found that said property was of the value of $2,000.

For a reversal, the two-fold contention of appellant is that appellees' witnesses were not qualified to testify as to the market value of the land, and also that the chancellor's finding as to damages is not supported by the weight of the evidence. We are unable to agree with appellant.

The court was correct in allowing appellees' witnesses to testify regarding the value of the property. Lester Lowery who owned the property in question previously stated that he was acquainted with the general market value of property in the Granite Mountain Addition and that he bought and sold property. Worthy Springer stated that he was well acquainted with appellees' property, that he had bought and sold property in that neighborhood several times, and that he had discussed the price of such property during the last few years with people who were buying and selling homes. This court has held that it rests largely within the discretion of the trial court to decide the competency of a witness to express an opinion as to the value of land. See Bridgeman v. Baxter County, 202 Ark. 15, 148 S.W.2d 673, and Fort Smith & Van Buren District...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Darling
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 6 d1 Novembro d1 1967
    ...or value may be shown. Desha v. Independence County Bridge Dist. No. 1, 176 Ark. 253, 3 S.W.2d 969; Housing Authority of City of Little Rock, Ark. v. Winston, 226 Ark. 1037, 295 S.W.2d 621; Springfield v. Housing Authority, 227 Ark. 1023, 304 S.W.2d 938. Other examples are: Cost of restorat......
  • Territory by Sharpless v. Adelmeyer
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 19 d3 Julho d3 1961
    ... ... the Rodrigues case (referring to Hawaii Housing Authority v. Rodrigues, 43 Haw. 195, rehearing ... 1000; Housing Authority of City of Little Rock, Arkansas v ... Page 983 ... Winston, 226 Ark. 1037, 295 S.W.2d 621; Hickey v. United ... ...
  • Farmers Equipment Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 17 d1 Julho d1 1972
    ...to market value witnesses. Lazenby v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 231 Ark. 601, 331 S.W.2d 705; Housing Authority of City of Little Rock v. Winston, 226 Ark. 1037, 295 S.W.2d 621; Ft. Smith & Van Buren Bridge Dist. v. Scott, 103 Ark. 405, 147 S.W. Even though the evidence of qualific......
  • City of Springdale v. Keicher
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 9 d1 Outubro d1 1967
    ...of this conclusion we call attention to certain pertinent decisions of this Court. In Housing Authority of Little Rock, Arkansas v. Winston, 226 Ark. 1037, 295 S.W.2d 621, we said that a non-expert witness who is acquainted with the land in question and says he knows the market value is com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT