Kasten Const. Co. v. State Roads Commission, 192
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Citation | 207 A.2d 505,238 Md. 38 |
| Docket Number | No. 192,192 |
| Parties | KASTEN CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc. v. STATE ROADS COMMISSION of Maryland. |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1965 |
Jerome F. Connell, Glen Burnie (Biener & Connell, Glen Burnie, on the brief), for appellant.
Herbert L. Cohen, Sp. Atty., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and James C. Morton, Jr., Sp. Atty., Annapolis, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.
On the appeal in this condemnation proceeding, the only question requiring consideration is whether this Court may review the action of the lower court in excluding evidence bearing on the net value of building lots in a proposed subdivision of unimproved land.
The State Roads Commission of Maryland (condemnor) condemned 5.14 acres (or 28 lots) of a 13.61 acre tract owned by the Kasten Construction Company (condemnee) that had been laid out in 58 lots which (because of the likelihood that a state highway would be constructed through the proposed subdivision) had not been rezoned from an agricultural use to a cottage residential use.
At the hearing before a jury to determine the value of the land to be taken, one of the appraisers for the condemnor, using a before taking valuation of $4000 per acre and an after taking valuation of $2800 per acre, calculated the value of the land taken to be $26,800. Another appraiser for the condemnor also using 'per acre' valuations, arrived at $28,170 as the value of the condemned land. On the other hand, an officer of the corporate condemnee testified that the lots in the subdivision would be saleable at an average price of $3000 each upon completion of the development. But when he sought to evaluate, as of that time, the fair market value of the land both before and after the taking, by showing the cost of bringing sewer and water lines (and possibly roadways and other improvements) to the lots in order to establish the net value of the lots to the condemnee, an objection by the condemnor (on the ground that the testimony of a representative of the sanitary commission would be the best evidence) was sustained. The condemnee then made a proffer that the witness, besides testifying 'as to the value of the condemned property and the value of the remaining property both before and after the taking,' would also explain how he arrived at such valuations. The court reserved its ruling on the proffer, but no ruling was ever made thereon,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sas v. State of Maryland, Civ. A. No. 14808
...George's County (Digges, C. J. and Powers, J.) carefully followed the instructions contained in the remands in Daniels v. Director, 1965, 238 Md. 38, 83-84, 206 A.2d 726 and Murel v. Director, 1965, 240 Md. 258, 260, 213 A.2d 576. Eight days were devoted to the hearing3 of oral testimony, f......
-
Wyller v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 73-2480
...Type Engineering Co. v. DeMatteo Construction Co., 159 Conn. 242, 268 A.2d 391, 395 (1970); Kasten Construction Co. v. State Roads Comm., 238 Md. 38, 207 A.2d 505, 506 (1965); State v. Kendrick, 383 S.W.2d 740, 746 (Mo.1964); Marstaller v. Albina Dock Co., 191 Or. 145, 229 P.2d 269, 275 (19......