Seabd. Air Line Ry v. Chamblin

• Decision Date: 12 March 1908
• Citation: 60 S.E. 727,108 Va. 42
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. CHAMBLIN et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

60 S.E. 727

108 Va. 42

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.

v.CHAMBLIN et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 12, 1908.

1. Evidence — Eminent Domain—Compensation— "Market Value."

The "market value" of property is the price which it will bring when it is offered for sale by one who desires, but is not obliged, to sell it, and is bought by one who is under no necessity of having it; and in estimating its value all the capabilities of the property, and all uses to which it may be applied, are to be considered.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig vol. 20, Evidence, §§ 259-296.

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4383-4388; vol. 8, p. 7717.]

2. Same—Value op Land—Other Purchases.

A railway company having purchased an undivided half interest in real estate at a specified price, under circumstances which show that the purchase was made without compulsion and not by way of compromise, evidence thereof is admissible for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the remaining undivided half of the same property in a proceeding instituted by the company for its condemnation.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, §§ 416-419.]

3. Appeal and Error—Estoppel to Allege Error.

A party, after having introduced evidence, cannot be heard to object to its consideration.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, § 3597.]

Error to Hustings Court of Richmond.

Petition by the Seaboard Air Line Railway against John Chamblin and others to condemn property. From a judgment awarding damages, petitioner brings error. Affirmed.

E. R. Williams, for plaintiff in error.

Chas. S. Stringfellow and Leake & Carter, for defendants in error.

KEITH, P. The Seaboard Air Line Railway presented its petition in the hustings court of the city of Richmond, in which it shows that in order to provide for the convenient conduct of its business in the city of Richmond it desires to acquire the fee-simple interest in that certain piece or parcel of land, with improvements thereon, constituting a part of the real estate occupied by the Richmond Iron Works, known as the "Chamblin & Scott property"; that the fee-simple interest in the tract of land referred to was the partnership property of the late James H. Scott and John Chamblin, the title to it being fully set forth in the record of the chancery suit of John Chamblin, Surviving Partner, etc., v. James H. Scott's Administrators et al., pending on the chancery side of the law and equity court of the city of Richmond, from a report in which it appears that the property belongs to John Chamblin, surviving partner, for himself and James H. Scott, former partners, doing business as Chamblin & Scott; that it is partnership assets, and is first liable for the payment of the partnership debts and liabilities, and then to be equally divided between himself and the personal representatives of James H. Scott, deceased, they having been equal partners in the business formerly conducted by them upon this property. The petition further shows that by deed dated the 30th day of December, 1905, between the said John Chamblin and the Seaboard Air Line Railway, the petitioner acquired the entire interest of Chamblin in the partnership assets in the late firm of Scott & Chamblin, including his undivided one-half interest in the tract of land hereinbefore described.

The petitioner further shows that, although it has acquired the undivided one-half interest in the land, it has been unable to agree with the parties authorized to sell on the terms of purchase for the remaining undivided one-half interest, and now seeks to acquire in these proceedings an undivided one-half fee-simple interest in the tract of land above described, with improvements, constituting a part of the real estate, subject to the lease of the Richmond Iron Works, if any it has.

The administrators of James H. Scott and his heirs at law were made parties to this proceeding, and five disinterested freeholders were appointed commissioners by the court, who reported as follows: That upon the evidence before them they decided to make an alternative award:

"(1) If the evidence produced before us, that the said Seaboard Air Line Railway, on the 30th day of December, 1905, purchased of John Chamblin one undivided one-half fee-simple interest in the said land at the price of $27,500, is competent evidence and admissible, then we are of opinion and do ascertain that for the other one undivided one-half fee-simple interest in said land pro posed to be taken in these proceedings $27,-500 would be a just compensation.

"(2) If said evidence is incompetent and inadmissible, then we are of opinion and do ascertain that for the undivided one-half fee-simple interest in said land proposed to be taken in these proceedings $25,000 would be a just compensation.

"We are advised that under the law governing this proceeding 'the inquiry must be: What is the property worth in the market, from its availability for valuable uses both now and in the future?' We take it that 'future' means reasonable future. 'If it has a peculiar adaptation for certain uses, this may be shown, and if such peculiar adaptation adds to its value, the owner is entitled to the benefit of it.'

"We are of opinion that the property in question is peculiarly adapted for railroad purposes; in fact, that its value for such purposes is largely in excess of its value for any other purposes.

"Now the officials of the Seaboard Air Line Railway who are specially qualified to pass upon the value of this property for railroad purposes have without compulsion or by way of compromise paid within the last few months $27,500 for one-half of the whole property. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that our award, treating said evidence of purchase as inadmissible, is $25,000, we think that we are justified, when treating said evidence as admissible, to attach great weight to said purchase, and to make our award $27,500."

The hustings court, by its final order, gave judgment against the railroad for $27,500, and to that judgment a writ of error was awarded upon the petition of the Seaboard Air Line Railway.

There is nothing for us to decide except as to the admissibility of the proof that the railway company, on the 30 th day of December, 1905, purchased of John Chamblin one undivided one half fee-simple interest in the land sought to be condemned for $27,500 in a proceeding the object of which is to ascertain the market value of the fee-simple interest in the remaining half of the same parcel of land.

Before discussing the subject it would be well to point out the precise mode in which the question is presented to us. We are not embarrassed by any consideration as to similarity of circumstances and situation. We are not called upon to consider varying conditions which may affect such a question, when the effort is to show market value of a parcel of land by proof of sales of other parcels of land of like character and situation. Here the conditions are not similar, but identical. The Seaboard Air Line Railway paid $27,500 for an undivided one-half interest in the fee simple of this particular...