Pruner State Highway v. Commissioner
| Decision Date | 13 September 1939 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2112. |
| Citation | 173 Va. 307 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | J. A. PRUNER v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER. |
Present, Holt, Hudgins, Gregory, Browning, Eggleston and Spratley, JJ.
1. EMINENT DOMAIN — Compensation — Measure and Elements — Adaptability of Property to Particular Uses — Basis Is Most Valuable Use. — It is the duty of commissioners who are charged with determining the value of land which is being taken by eminent domain to consider all uses to which it may be reasonably adapted and to award compensation upon the basis of its most advantageous and valuable use, having regard to the existing business demands of the community or such as may be reasonably expected in the immediate future.
2. EMINENT DOMAIN — Compensation — Measure and Elements — Uses to Be Considered Must Be Reasonably Probable. — The uses to be considered by commissioners who are charged with determining the value of land which is being taken by eminent domain must be so reasonably probable as to have an effect on the present market value of the land, and purely imaginative or speculative value should not be considered.
3. EMINENT DOMAIN — Compensation — Full and Perfect Equivalent for Property. — Compensation for land taken by eminent domain must be a full and perfect equivalent for the property.
4. EMINENT DOMAIN — Compensation — Measure and Elements — Failure to Consider Adaptability of Land for Subdivision Uses — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding by the highway commissioner to condemn land, the owner of the land excepted to the report of the commissioners on the ground that the tract of land taken was considered by the commissioners only as agricultural land and that no consideration was given to the availability of the land for subdivision purposes. Three of the four commissioners testified that they considered the land taken as useful only for agricultural purposes, while the fourth commissioner simply stated that the report was the result of his carefully considered judgment. Part of the land was situated in a town and many residences had been built along the old highway so that the location and the surroundings rendered the land available for subdivision.
Held: That in the appraisal of the land in question, its adaptability for subdivision uses should have been considered as an element in estimating the market value, and consideration of its use should not have been confined to that of agriculture alone.
5. EMINENT DOMAIN — Compensation — Assessment by Commissioners — Consideration of Hearsay Evidence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding by the highway commissioner to condemn land, the evidence showed that in considering the amount of the award one commissioner said to the others that he had heard a friend of the owner state that a certain amount would be satisfactory, whereupon another commissioner stated that he had heard from another man that the owner would not be satisfied unless he got a larger amount. The first amount mentioned was the amount fixed in the award.
Held: That the hearsay statements were not admissible and should not have been considered by the commissioners, and the fact that the award was fixed at one of the figures mentioned in the hearsay testimony was a strong indication that it had some influence upon the commissioners.
6. JUDICIAL NOTICE — Matters of Common Knowledge — Value of Farm Land. — The Supreme Court of Appeals knows by common knowledge that farming land is not generally worth five hundred dollars per acre.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Russell county. Hon. Alfred A. Skeen, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
George A. Pruner, Erma Griffith and A. T. Griffith, for the plaintiff in error.
Abram P. Staples, Attorney-General, and D. Gardiner Tyler, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the defendant in error.
The Highway Commissioner filed his petition against J. A. Pruner, the owner, for the condemnation of 2.94 acres of land for the uses of the State Highway Commission of Virginia in the construction of highway No. 19 in Russell county. The commissioner alleges that in the construction of the highway it is necessary to cross the land of J. A. Pruner and that he has made a bona fide effort to obtain the necessary title and right of way to the land needed but has been unable to reach an agreement as to price or terms. He prays that commissioners be appointed to ascertain a fair price for the land required and damages to the residue.
Commissioners were appointed by the court and after viewing the premises and hearing testimony they made their report in which they awarded compensation of $2,250.
Counsel for Pruner filed exceptions to the report of the commissioners and a hearing was had. The lower court decided in favor of the Highway Commissioner, overruled the exceptions and confirmed the report of the commissioners.
A portion of the tract of land involved extends into the town of Lebanon and the residue lies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Chesapeake Ferry Co
...of Virginia v. Fletcher, 153 Va. 43, 149 S.E. 456); the full and perfect equivalent for what is taken. Pruner v. State Highway Commissioner, 173 Va. 307, 4 S.E.2d 393. Said Mr. Justice Holmes in Boston Chamber of Commerce v. City of Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 30 S.Ct. 459, 460, 54 L.Ed. 725, the......
-
State By and Through State Highway Commission v. Arnold
...immediate future.' To the same effect is Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 1937, 91 F.2d 884; Pruner v. State Highway Com'r, 1939, 173 Va. 307, 4 S.E.2d 393. It is not enough to show that prospective uses are within the realm of possibility; they must be shown to be reasona......
-
Anderson v. Chesapeake Ferry Co.
...Chairman of Highway Comm. Fletcher, 153 Va. 43, 149 S.E. 456); the full and perfect equivalent for what is taken (Pruner State Highway Com'r, 173 Va. 307, 4 S.E.(2d) 393). Said Mr. Justice Holmes in Boston Chamber of Commerce Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 30 S.Ct. 459, 54 L.Ed. 725, the Constitutio......
-
Tandet v. Urban Redevelopment Commission of City of Stamford
...of the land. Purely imaginative or speculative value should not be considered." (Emphasis added.) Pruner v. State Highway Commissioner, 173 Va. 307, 310-11, 4 S.E.2d 393, 394 (1939). In the absence of such a showing, evidence of the proposed use is too remote and speculative to have any leg......