Maynard v. City of Northampton

• Decision Date: 20 October 1892
• Citation: 157 Mass. 218,31 N.E. 1062
• Parties: MAYNARD et al. v. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

157 Mass. 218

31 N.E. 1062

MAYNARD et al. v. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire.

October 20, 1892

On the trial, it appeared that the land in question was manufacturing property; that for manufacturing purposes the land through which the sewer is laid is essential to an extension of the mill already on the land and that it could be there placed on a rock foundation. It was claimed by the defendant that the site in question was a steep hillside, composed of clay and quicksand, and E.C. Davis, one of the plaintiff's witnesses, was, on cross-examination, inquired of on this point, and whether building there would not be at great expense. The petitioner Maynard testified, among other things, that a suitable location for a new mill on said site would be to locate it 30 feet away from the present mill, and parallel with it, cutting down the bank to the bed rock which is there at about the level of the foundations of the present mill, and putting in a bank wall or retaining wall so far as necessary on the east, and that the earth to be removed would be of value sufficient to pay for its removal. He was asked by the petitioners' counsel what would be the cost of a building such as this lot is adapted to receive. To this the defendant objected, but no question was raised as to his competency to testify as to cost. The evidence was admitted subject to exception. The witness answered: "I think it can be built for $12,000. It certainly would not exceed $14,000." To the admission of this question and answer the defendant alleged exception.

COUNSEL

Wm G. Bassett and Richard W. Irwin, for plaintiffs.

J.C Hammond and H.P. Field, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The only exception in this case is to the admission in evidence of testimony of what would be the cost of a building such as the lot taken by the city for a sewer was adapted to receive. In determining the damages in cases of this kind the jury should consider not only the value of the property taken, but also the effect of the taking upon that which is left; and in estimating the value of that which is taken they may consider all the uses to which it might properly have been applied if it had not been taken. In like manner the effect on that which is left should be estimated in reference to all the uses to which it was naturally adapted before the taking. Damages are not to be awarded in reference to the...