Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Tersana Acres, Inc.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before O'SULLIVAN; WYNNE
• Citation: Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Tersana Acres, Inc., 144 Conn. 509, 134 A.2d 253 (Conn. 1957)
• Decision Date: 26 July 1957
• Parties: NORTHEASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. TERSANA ACRES, Inc. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 253

134 A.2d 253

144 Conn. 509

NORTHEASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. TERSANA ACRES, Inc.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 26, 1957.

Joseph M. Brandon, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were David E. Fitz-Gerald, Jr., New Haven, Charles Stroh, Hartford, Charles J. Wood, Jr., and Jeremiah A. Cronin, New Haven for appellant (plaintiff).

Daniel E. Brennan, Jr., Bridgeport, with whom were James J. A. Daly, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, Thomas F. Seymour, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).

Before O'SULLIVAN, C. J. and BALDWIN, WYNNE, DALY and KING, JJ.

WYNNE, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered upon the report of a committee appointed in condemnation proceedings to obtain an easement for a gas transmission line under § 2620d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes.

A brief summary of facts follows: On April 7, 1952, the defendant was the owner of a tract of land consisting of 166 acres situated in the town of Easton. The terrain is generally sloping, rolling, undulatory and heavily wooded. The tract is in a residential zone where building lots are required to contain at least 40,000 square feet, a frontage of at least 200 feet on any abutting street, and a minimum setback for any building of 50 feet from any street and 40 feet from all other boundaries. The plaintiff acquired a permanent easement for the construction and maintenance of a natural gas pipe line. The easement is 30 feet wide and 1339 feet long and runs in a generally westerly direction across the southeastern portion of the defendant's property. Also included was a temporary easement ten feet wide on each side of the permanent easement. The highest and best use of the defendant's property is as a residential development for expensive homes. As early as 1940 the defendant's predecessor in title planned the subdivision of the entire tract, and after the organization of the defendant in 1948 it planned the development of the entire tract as an integral unit with connecting and continuous roads throughout. Prior to April 7, 1952, a subdivision plan of the northwesterly portion was filed and was approved by the town of Easton. While roads have not been constructed in the southerly and easterly portions of the tract, preliminary clearing, including the felling of large trees, has been done in those sections for the extension of a road already established.

The plaintiff filed a motion to correct the report of the committee and asked for extensive changes. Some were granted by the committee. The court overruled the exceptions taken upon the refusal of the committee to grant others. It is the function of a committee to weigh the testimony and determine the facts. In so doing, it may accept part of the testimony of an expert and reject other parts. The committee is not bound by the opinion of experts. Clark v. Haggard, 141 Conn. 668, 674, 109 A.2d 358; Morgan v. Hill, 139 Conn. 159, 161, 90 A.2d 641. There is no merit in the assignments of error addressed to the action of the trial court upon the exceptions taken by the plaintiff to the committee's report.

The two other main issues are whether the court erred in upholding the action of the committee in assessing the damages upon the consideration of the land as an integral unit and whether it erred in sustaining the committee in its decision to include as an element of the damages the public belief in the danger inherent in the presence of a gas pipe line. The committee made its award in the alternative, finding that the loss in fair market value if the land was considered as a real estate development subdivided with streets and building lots was $27,279, and the loss if the land was considered on an acreage basis as an integral unit was $26,560. An award in the alternative is proper procedure. Practice Book, § 169.

The committee found upon competent testimony that the highest and best use of the defendant's property was for residential purposes and determined its value for these purposes. The court properly accepted this finding. Campbell v. New Haven, 101 Conn. 173, 181, 125 A. 650; Housing Authority v. Lustig, 139 Conn. 73, 76, 90 A.2d 169. The court found, contrary to the defendant's contention, that the market value of the land should be determined on an acreage basis and thus accepted the second alternative as to value found by the committee. But it determined, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, that if the acreage basis was used, the property should be considered as an integral unit. Under the circumstances this was proper. Where part of a parcel of land or an easement in it is taken by eminent domain, the general rule is that the damages are the difference between the market value of the whole tract as it was before the taking and its market value after the taking. Andrews v. Cox, 127 Conn. 455, 457, 17 A.2d 507; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New Haven, 81 Conn. 581, 583, 71 A. 780.

'[I]n determining market values in awarding damages for land taken, it is proper to consider all those elements which an owner or a prospective purchaser could reasonably urge as affecting the fair price of the land.' Andrews v. Cox, supra, 127 Conn. 458, 17 A.2d 509. The plaintiff complains because the committee found, and the...