Pa., P. & B. R. Co. v. Root

• Citation: 53 N.J.L. 253,21 A. 285
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA, P. & B. R. CO. v. ROOT et al.
• Decision Date: 20 February 1891
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

21 A. 285

53 N.J.L. 253

PENNSYLVANIA, P. & B. R. CO.

v. ROOT et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 20, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to circuit court, Sussex county; before Magie, J.

Martin & Conklin, for plaintiff in error.

Francis J. Swayze, for defendants in error.

BEASLEY, C. J. This was a proceeding to condemn lands for railroad purposes. The property so sought to be taken was part of a farm. The first question presented for the consideration of this court is whether, in such an injury, before a jury, on appeal to the circuit court, it is lawful to ask a witness, who is a farmer, acquainted with the value of farm land in the neighborhood of the property condemned, what, in his opinion, is the market value of the farm in question before the running of the railroad through it, and what is its value after such event? It seems to me that this question, in its broad sense, cannot be answered categorically, either in the affirmative or the negative; for the legality of the interrogation depends on the incidents of the case that is trying. The witness is an expert on certain subjects, and his opinions have no place in the judicial investigation except by reason of such status. Within the sphere of his special knowledge, he is competent to express his opinion; beyond that reach, he is not competent. Such is, beyond question, the general rule; none but experts on the given subject can, in any course of law, express their estimate of the value of anything, real or personal. Such it is believed is the universal practice of all courts that are controlled by the methods of the common law. Carrying, therefore, in our mind this doctrine that the witness in question is competent to express his opinion only upon subjects to which his special knowledge relates, it is easy to see that, in the class of cases to which the present one belongs, sometimes the interrogatory above stated will be legitimate, and at other times not so. Thus, if the effect of the taxation of the railroad in a particular case is simply to sever the fields of a farm from each other, producing the necessity of putting and keeping up additional fences, and producing inconvenience in the tillage of the farm, if these be the sole detriments in question, it would seem plain that the farmer would be an expert as to the quantum of such impairment. The situation would be the same as that which is occasioned by the laying out of a common highway under similar circumstances, and the...