Jayson v. United States

• Decision Date: 13 October 1961
• Docket Number: No. 18604.,18604.
• Parties: Robert JAYSON et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

294 F.2d 808 (1961)

Robert JAYSON et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18604.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

October 13, 1961.

Royal H. Brin, Jr., Dallas, Tex., Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, Dallas, Tex., of counsel, for appellants.

Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger P. Marquis and Elizabeth Dudley, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Ramsey Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. West, III, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.

Before RIVES, CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

CAMERON, Circuit Judge.

This is a condemnation suit brought by appellee, the United States, to acquire title to property owned by appellants Jayson et al., consisting of a five-story building with basement in downtown Dallas, Texas, and including the land on which it was situated. The complaint alleged that the property was to be taken for the construction of a federal building. The Government's estimate of just compensation for this parcel was $326,000, while the value claimed in the defendants' answer was $750,000. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in the amount of $380,000 upon which judgment was entered. Appellants moved for a new trial, upon the denial of which this appeal was taken.

The questions argued before us are these: whether the lower court erred in excluding evidence offered by appellants bearing upon the fair market value of the condemned property, and admitted over their objection allegedly improper evidence on the same subject; whether there was unlawful misconduct by the jury during its deliberations resulting in prejudice to appellants; and whether the court erred in refusing to permit appellants to show before the jury that a syndicate of individuals had executed a contract of indemnity to the government protecting it against the cost of the condemned property in excess of a certain amount, in denying appellants the right to bring the indemnitors in as parties to the proceedings.

The property taken was land located in Dallas, Texas, which fronted fifty feet on Commerce Street, running through two hundred feet to Jackson Street, and fronting fifty feet thereon. On it was a five-story building with basement, estimated to be between forty and seventy-five years old, each floor containing 10,000 square feet. The walls were twenty-two inches thick in the basement, decreasing to twelve inches at the top. There were some steel columns in the basement, but the upper floors had wood columns and girders.

The appellants purchased the property in 1955 for $200,000 as an investment, and then employed an architect to prepare plans for remodeling the building, the cost of which was a little more than $150,000 for permanent improvements. After the remodeling, three leases were entered into with various businesses on the basis of an annual rental of sixty-two cents to one dollar per square foot.¹ It was appellants' opinion that the "going return" for all space in the building would be two dollars per square foot.

Expert witnesses testified for both sides, the appellants' witnesses evaluating the property at $665,000 to $780,000. The government's expert witness, using various "accepted approaches," valued the property as of the date of taking at $326,000. Arguing that the trend of development is considered very important, appellee emphasizes that the government's witness testified that, since 1926, there has been about fifteen times as many square feet of space constructed east of Akard Street as that constructed west of this street, in which latter area the building was located.

The jury returned a verdict of $380,000 and final judgment was entered thereon. Appellants contend that the lower court erred in refusing testimony by appellant Jayson that he was offered a certain amount for the property prior to the taking. This Court, as well as others, has held in numerous condemnation cases the landowner could not present evidence as to offers he had received from third parties. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. United States, 1943, 132 F.2d 959; United States v. Dillman, 1945, 146 F.2d 572, certiorari denied, 325 U.S. 870, 65 S.Ct. 1409, 89 L.Ed. 1989; St. Joe Paper Co. v. United States, 1946, 155 F.2d 93; and see Sharp v. United States, 1903, 191 U.S. 341, 24 S.Ct. 114, 48 L.Ed. 211.

The exclusion of proffered testimony as to the amount that appellant claims to have been offered for the fourth floor of the building as office space, and offers which he said were withdrawn when the fact that the government contemplated taking the property became known, are subject to the same objection as the alleged offer to purchase the property. There was already ample testimony, given by a number of witnesses, as to the value of the property for use as office space. The court charged the jury to consider the "highest and most valuable use" of the property, and there had been...