Reiter v. State Highway Commission
| Decision Date | 09 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39662,39662 |
| Parties | James REITER and Violet Reiter, his wife, Appellees, v. The STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of the State of Kansas, Appellant. James H. REITER and Violet Reiter, his wife, et al., Appellees, v. The STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of the State of Kansas, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In determining the market value of land taken by eminent domain proceedings, every legitimate use to which it may be applied and for which it is adapted, including that which is most advantageous and valuable, may be considered.
2. In condemnation proceedings, sand and gravel in the land are considered part of the realty and are not to be valued separate from the value of the land as a whole.
3. In a highway condemnation proceeding in the district court, admission of evidence concerning value of sand deposits in the land taken, separate and apart from value of land, was error.
4. When land condemned for highway purposes contains valuable deposits of sand, gravel or other material of value, these circumstances may be considered so far as they affect the market value of the land taken as a whole.
5. Where the land taken contains valuable deposits of sand, gravel or other valuable deposits, the measure of compensation is the market value of the land with the deposits in it, and the value of the minerals cannot be shown separately.
6. Fixing just compensation for land taken by eminent domain by multiplying the number of square yards, cubic yards or tons of sand or gravel contained in the land, by a given price or royalty rate per unit, is an improper method of computing the market value of the land including the deposits thereunder.
W. B. Kirkpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Henry L. Daniels, Topeka, Clarence Paulsen, Concordia, on the briefs, for appellant.
Ralph H. Noah, and Don W. Noah, Beloit, Frank C. Baldwin, Concordia, on the briefs, for appellees and cross-appellants.
Under two proceedings in emient domain, the highway commission appropriated land for highway purposes. In one proceeding, James H. Reiter and other heirs of the Reiter estate are the owners of the northwest quarter of a section of land in Cloud county. The land taken by the highway commission amounted to approximately nineteen acres, consisting of a strip extending diagonally across the land. Under a part of this condemned land lay sand deposits of varying depths and quality. Not being satisfied with the award of the appraisers, the landowners appealed to the district court which approved a verdict of the jury for damages totaling $20,019.30.
In the second proceeding, James H. and Violet Reiter are the owners of the southeast quarter of a section of land in Cloud county, and that portion appropriated for highway purposes amounting to about seventeen acres, also extended diagonally across the quarter section. A part of this land condemned, likewise contained sand deposits. The landowners appeal from the award of the appraisers to the district court which approved a verdict of the jury for damages in the sum of $3,768.30. The two cases were consolidated for trial in the court below, and are so consolidated here on appeal. From the judgments entered, the highway commission appeals to this court, asserting that the trial court erred in its ruling upon the admissibility of the evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses as to the value of the land taken, in overruling its timely motion to strike such testimony, and in overruling its motion for a new trial. From the judgment in the first proceeding, the landowners cross-appeal, alleging the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence of the landowners, and that their motion for a limited new trial should have been sustained. The landowners in the second suit, apparently being satisfied with the judgment entered by the trial court, have perfected no cross-appeal.
Plaintiffs Reiter in each case, appellees and cross-appellants herein, will be referred to as landowners. Defendant State Highway Commission, appellant herein, will be referred to as highway commission.
The primary question for our consideration is whether the trial court erred in permitting witnesses of the landowners to testify as to the value of the condemned land, predicated solely on the basis of the value of the sand deposits lying beneath the land.
The landowners' first witness, Mr. Hill, testified that he was an employee of the highway commission and was an engineer and geologist; that he had made soundings and bornings along the right of way in question, and testified as to the quantity and quality of the sand underlying the condemned land, based upon these tests. At this juncture it may be stated that in reviewing the testimony we find there is ample, competent evidence that the use of the land in question was most adaptable and advantageous to the production of sand. Three of the remaining four witnesses testifying in behalf of the landowners had been engaged in the sand business for a number of years, and the fourth in the real estate business. On direct examination, each testified as to the value of the land appropriated by the highway commission for its most advantageous use. No useful purpose would be gained by setting forth the questions propounded to the witnesses and their answers thereto. Suffice it to say that on cross-examination, each of the mentioned witnesses testified that the valuation they placed on the land taken was based on the value of the sand. Three of the witnesses questioned as to the method of arriving at the valuation testified they computed the value upon the quantity of the sand under the land, as testified to by witness Hill, and the price they received for the sand when they sold it. The fourth witness testified his valuation was computed upon the quantity of the sand under the land, as testified to by Mr. Hill, and the royalty paid in the past to the Reiter estate for the sand.
The highway commission made timely objection to the testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses that they were not qualified to give an opinion as to the value of the land taken for its most adaptable use, and timely motions to strike the testimony of the respective witnesses for the reason that their method of valuation was not proper, and constituted a separate valuation of the sand under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas Turnpike Project, In re, 40335
...United States, 4 Cir., 144 F.2d 751; Newton Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 Cir., 160 F.2d 175; Reiter v. State Highway Commission, 177 Kan. 683, 281 P.2d 1080; State ex rel. McCaskill v. Hall, 325 Mo. 165, 28 S.W.2d 80, 69 A.L.R. 1256; 166 A.L.R. 1211; State Highway Commis......
-
Lafayette Airport Com'n v. Roy
...Hayward case the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following language which was used by the Supreme Court of Kansas in Reiter v. State Highway Commission, supra: '. . . The question for determination was the value of the land, Not the value of the sand beneath the surface. It was prope......
-
Kansas Turnpike Project, In re
...United States, 4 Cir., 144 F.2d 751; Newton Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 Cir., 160 F.2d 175; Reiter v. State Highway Commission, 177 Kan. 683, 281 P.2d 1080; State ex rel. McCaskill v. Hall, 325 Mo. 165, 28 S.W.2d 80, 69 A.L.R. 1256; State Highway Commission v. Weiss, 16......
-
Werner v. Com., Dept. of Highways
...A.2d 924, 925 (Del.1964); Comstock v. Iowa State Highway Comm., 254 Iowa 1301, 1316, 121 N.W.2d 205 (1963); Reiter v. State Highway Comm., 177 Kan. 683, 688, 281 P.2d 1080 (1955); Gulf Interstate Gas Co. v. Garvin, 368 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Ky.1963); Joseph De Vries & Sons, Inc. v. Commonwealth,......