Knapheide v. Jackson County

• Decision Date: 23 December 1908
• Citation: 215 Mo. 516,114 S.W. 960
• Parties: KNAPHEIDE v. JACKSON COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

114 S.W. 960

215 Mo. 516

KNAPHEIDE v. JACKSON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 23, 1908.

EVIDENCE (§ 497)—OPINION EVIDENCE.

In proceedings by a county to open a public road, qualified witnesses were properly permitted to give their opinions as to whether defendant's property was damaged or benefited, and as to the extent of the damages or benefits.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; J. H. Slover, Judge.

Proceedings by Jackson County against F. W. Knapheide to open a public road. On the trial in the county court there was a verdict of no damages, and Knapheide appealed to the circuit court, and, on a verdict of no damages, again appealed. Affirmed.

L. T. Dryden, for appellant. Charles W. German and W. S. Flournoy, for respondent.

VALLIANT, P. J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the circuit court of Jackson county in a proceeding that originated in the county court, the purpose of which was to open a public road. A part of appellant's land was taken for the road, but the commissioners assessed no damages in his favor. Exceptions were filed by appellant, and a trial by jury in the county court resulted in a verdict of no damages. On appeal to the circuit court, and trial there by jury, the verdict was also no damages. Then the appeal was taken to this court.

Appellant makes only two assignments of error; The admission of certain testimony, and the refusal to give an instruction as asked, but giving it modified by the court. The sole questions tried were, What was the value of appellant's land that was taken? Was the rest of his land damaged or benefited by the establishment of the road and the extent of the damage or benefit? Appellant owns about 278 acres. The road runs along one side of it taking 1.03 acres. There were a good many witnesses called, and the testimony is full on all the questions. Their testimony included a description of the land of appellant, its topography, shape, and character, and of the land adjoining, and the location of the proposed road, and its utility in view of an old road that already existed. All the rest was opinion evidence as to the value of the land; cost of fencing; whether the proposed road would damage or benefit the land of appellant. Appellant himself testified that his land was worth $100 an acre, and to cut off a strip for the road was worth $125 an acre; that the road was no benefit to his property whatever; that in his opinion he was damaged $250, which sum he made up by estimating the land taken at $125, and the building and maintaining fences at $125. The witnesses on his side were of the opinion that his land was worth $90 to $100 an acre, and it would cost $60 to $75 to build the fences, and that the proposed road would be a damage and no benefit to his land. Respondent's witnesses gave their opinions that the land of appellant was worth $80 to $85 an acre, and the fence would cost $40 to $50, and that the proposed road would be a peculiar benefit to appellant's land, amounting to more than the value of the land taken and the cost of the fence. All the opinion witnesses on both sides were well acquainted with appellant's land and...