Howe v. Howard
| Decision Date | 03 March 1893 |
| Parties | HOWE v. HOWARD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Sidney
A. Phillips, for plaintiff.
Ira B. Forbes and Edwin A. Alger, for defendant.
Assuming that the land taken by the commonwealth was similar to and in the same vicinity with that the value of which was in issue, and that the taking was sufficiently near in point of time to make evidence of a sale competent under the familiar rule stated in Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp., 122 Mass. 305, testimony as to the amount received by its owner as damages awarded by a jury for its taking was incompetent. In Wyman v. Railroad Co., 13 Metc. (Mass.) 316, 326, Dewey, J., after deciding that evidence of an actual sale of adjacent land was competent, said that, "if it had been a price fixed by a jury, or in any way compulsorily paid by the party, the evidence of such payment would be inadmissible." A price so fixed represents only the opinion of those who make it, and, as the grounds and reasons of their opinion are not known, and they cannot be presumed to have been qualified experts, and cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the parties whose rights the evidence will affect, their opinion is not competent evidence to show the value of other land. In White v. Railroad Co., 4 Cush. 440, it was held that evidence of the amount paid under an award of arbitrators for adjoining land taken from another owner by the same defendant was rightly excluded. See, also, Cobb v. Boston, 112 Mass. 181, 184; Providence & W.R. Co. v. City of Worcester, (Mass.) 29 N.E. 56, 58.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. v. Day et al.
...proceeding are not admissible to prove value. Mayor of Lexington v. Long, 31 Mo. 369; City of Springfield v. Schmook, 68 Mo. 394; Howe v. Howard, 158 Mass. 278; San Luis Obispo v. Brizzalara, 100 Cal. 434, 34 Pac. 1083; Shoemaker v. Munsey, 37 Mo. App. (D.C.) 95; 2 Lewis on Em. Do. (3 Ed.),......
-
City of St. Louis v. Rossi
...262 Ill. 473, 104 N.E. 831; Luis Ibispo v. Brizzolara, 100 Cal. 435, 34 P. 1083; Met. Street Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 197 Mo. 401; How v. Howard, 158 Mass. 278, 33 N.E. 528. (5) market value of the property, both before and after the taking, must be determined in consideration of all the uses to w......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Day
... ... are not admissible to prove value. Mayor of Lexington v ... Long, 31 Mo. 369; City of Springfield v ... Schmook, 68 Mo. 394; Howe v. Howard, 158 Mass ... 278; San Luis Obispo v. Brizzalara, 100 Cal. 434, 34 ... P. 1083; Shoemaker v. Munsey, 37 Mo.App. (D. C.) 95; ... 2 Lewis ... ...
-
City of St. Louis v. Rossi
...Ill. 473, 104 N.E. 831; Luis Ibispo v. Brizzolara, 100 Cal. 435, 34 Pac. 1083; Met. Street Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 197 Mo. 401, How v. Howard, 158 Mass. 278, 33 N.E. 528. (5) The market value of the property both before and after the taking, must be determined in consideration of all the uses to ......