Mengell v. Mohnsville Water Co.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1909 |
| Docket Number | 320 |
| Citation | 224 Pa. 120,73 A. 201 |
| Parties | Mengell's Executors v. Mohnsville Water Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 1, 1909
Appeal, No. 320, Jan. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Berks Co., March T., 1906, No. 37, on verdict for plaintiff in case of estate of Matthias Mengel, deceased, v Mohnsville Water Company. Affirmed.
Appeal from report of jury of view. Before ERMENTROUT, P.J.
At the trial the court permitted under objection and exception various witnesses for plaintiff to testify as to value. [1-4]
The court charged in part as follows:
I want to say further that the jury are not to consider as any evidence of the market value of the property, the price paid for the property in 1875 as the market value in 1902. Common experience of the world teaches us that the values of property change greatly. What a person would give for a property in 1875 may be totally different from what they would give in 1902.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $4,810.
On a rule for a new trial ENDLICH, P.J., filed the following opinion:
This is an issue in a proceeding instituted by the defendant company to assess the damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of the defendant's appropriation about 1902 of "part of the water of Kleinginna Creek," a tributary of Wyomissing Creek, the latter furnishing the power for plaintiff's mill, connected with which there is farming land and buildings. The issue was tried before the late President Judge ERMENTROUT.
Certain reasons assigned in support of the defendant's application for a new trial based upon the alleged action of the jury and of plaintiffs' counsel in its presence during a view of the property, are not pressed. Obviously these were matters which, if deemed of sufficient importance, would have been at once brought to the notice of the court as ground for the withdrawal of a juror and continuance of the cause, or at least for such instructions by the court as might appear adequate to neutralize their possible undue effect. Upon very familiar principles the failure to take advantage of them in limine constituted a waiver of any objection based upon them. Accordingly the only reasons relied upon are those which allege error in the admission of the testimony of a number of witnesses upon the question of market values over objections made by defendant on the ground that they were not qualified for that purpose. The allegation of error in this particular is based upon what is said concerning the qualifications of witnesses as to market values in Lee v. Water Co., 176 Pa. 223; Lewis v. Water Co., 176 Pa. 230; Friday v. Railroad Co., 204 Pa. 405. It is not to be understood, neither is it contended, that these decisions announce any new doctrine upon the subject. On the contrary, the one last mentioned expressly proceeds upon the rules laid down in Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325, and Michael v. Pipe Line Co., 159 Pa. 99. Hence, subject to the requirement that the qualifications of a witness to give an opinion must appear and be passed upon by the court before he is permitted to do so, Michael v. Pipe Line Co., 159 Pa. p. 104, the rule still obtains that, if upon his preliminary examination he is shown to have any pretensions to speak on the matter, his competency to do so rests much in the discretion of the trial judge, Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 Pa. 146, the value and weight of the opinion expressed being, of course, a matter entirely for the jury: Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325; Lewis v. Water Co., 176 Pa. 230. The question whether or not there was in this case such error as calls for the setting aside of this verdict in allowing the witnesses referred to to express their opinions is to be judged of in the light of these principles.
Levi W. Mengel, now a teacher of natural history, has known mill property since his childhood, being the son of its deceased owner. At one time he operated the mill. He had attended for his father to the renting of it. He knew its condition at the time of the appropriation, and the relation of the water power as it then was to the demands made upon it. He knew that after the appropriation there was a diminution of the water power, though he could measure neither the amount of water running through the race before or after by gallons, nor the energy derived from it by horse power. He knew the general market value of properties in the neighborhood about 1902. It would seem that Lee v. Water Co., 176 Pa. 233, is directly in point as an authority vindicating the admission of this witness's opinion.
James S. Ammon was raised as a miller and had a mill at the time of the trial, besides being a contractor. He had known plaintiff's mill for forty years, and was acquainted with the general market value of real estate in the neighborhood about 1902. He knew of no sales of mill properties there about that time, neither could he give the extent of the loss to the plaintiff's mill by defendant's appropriation in gallons, cubic feet or horse power. But he knew that previously the water power was good. He was permitted to express his opinion as to the difference in market values upon the assumption that before the appropriation the mill had a water supply sufficient for the capacity of its equipment (with which he was familiar) and thereafter an inadequate one -- facts appearing not only by his own deposition, but elsewhere in the evidence. Again the objection to this witness would seem to go to the weight of his evidence, rather than to its competency, under the decision last cited.
Albert Thalheimer, a manufacturer living in the city of Reading, but acquainted with plaintiff's mill for thirty-six or more years down to the time of trial, and in a general way with the market value of property in the neighborhood before 1902, knew by information that the mill had, before the appropriation, a water power equal to fifteen horse power, and had had occasion to inform himself by inquiry as to the value of mill properties during the past ten years. O'Brien v. Railway Co., 194 Pa. 336, seems to justify the admission of this witness's opinion.
George G. Ruth is the only remaining witness to the reception of whose testimony the reasons assigned in support of this rule object. The objection, however, was not pressed at the argument. Whilst that circumstance might well be regarded as a waiver of the objection, an examination of his testimony leads to the conviction that he was entirely competent to give it under every rule recognized on the subject.
Isaac S. Spatz is not one of the witnesses alleged in the reasons filed to have been incompetent to express the opinion he was permitted to give; but he was referred to as such at the argument. He lived at Mohnton, knew plaintiff's mill for twenty-five years including 1902; and had a general knowledge of market values of property in the vicinity at that time. He did not know how much water was taken from the mill or to what in horse power its loss amounted. He did, however, know what effect it had upon the running of the mill. He hesitated about expressing an opinion as to the consequent difference in the market value of the property, but finally gave it. What is said in Railway Co. v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325, 332, applies to this witness exactly.
It is perhaps true that all this evidence was lacking in certain elements of precision. In part this may be regarded as attributable to the indefinite character of the defendant's petition under which the issue was framed and which in an important sense is to be treated as a pleading underlying the trial: Miller v. Water Co., 148 Pa. 429; P. & R.R.R. Co. v. R. & P.R.R. Co., 12 Pa. C.C. Rep. 513. That petition avers simply the appropriation of "part of the water of" a certain stream, without designating any quantity. Necessarily the issue framed was equally indefinite, and the plaintiffs' testimony went no further than the exigencies of the issue demanded. Had the petition and issue been more precise, it may be that the competency of the witnesses offered to sustain the plaintiff's side of it would have had to be tested by a more stringent rule in order to make their...
To continue reading
Request your trial