Snouffer v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 May 1898
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: SNOUFFER v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. ET AL.

105 Iowa 681

75 N.W. 501

SNOUFFER

v.CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 23, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Linn county; William G. Thompson, Judge.

Plaintiff is the owner of a lot in the city of Cedar Rapids which the two railway companies that are defendants herein have taken, through condemnation proceedings, for depot purposes. The defendants appeal from the award made by the sheriff's jury. Affirmed.S. K. Tracy, J. C. Leonard, and Hubbard & Dawley, for appellants.

Rickel & Crocker and Jamison & Smyth, for appellee.

WATERMAN, J.

It is urged that the court erred in not sustaining defendants' motion to strike from the record the testimony of one Bealer with relation to the amount other lots in the vicinity had sold for. The facts are that Bealer was a witness introduced by defendants. After giving his opinion as to the value of plaintiff's lot, he was cross-examined as to the basis of this opinion,--his knowledge of values in the locality. It was upon this cross-examination that he stated that he knew of sales of other lots, and gave the price paid in one instance. The testimony was admissible for the purpose for which it was offered. Winklemans v. Railway Co., 62 Iowa, 11, 17 N. W. 82;Cummins v. Same, 63 Iowa, 397, 19 N. W. 268. If this evidence had been offered as tending to show the value of plaintiff's lot, it would probably have been inadmissible, but this was not the case. The fact was elicited in an effort to ascertain the witness' knowledge of values. The distinction is clearly made in the last of the cases just cited.

2. The other errors assigned are of such a character that they can best be considered together. Plaintiff's lot was taken by defendants April 25, 1896, and both the instructions asked by appellants and those given by the court embodied the thought that the amount to be fixed by the jury was the fair market value of said property on this date. This we regard as the correct rule. But it is claimed by appellants that the court erred in permitting witnesses who testified as to the value of the lot on that day to take into consideration the prospective location of the depot. And it is said the instructions given by the court are framed on the idea that this fact might be considered. We see no just ground of complaint as to either of these matters. Many of the considerations that tend to affect the value of town property are prospective only. Select a lot in any city, find a witness competent to express an opinion as to its value, and ask him with relation thereto, and as to the basis of his judgment, and it will be found that the facts upon which his conclusions rest are anticipatory, largely. The business district is growing or extending towards it. It is particularly suitable for manufacturing purposes, or it is in a section that is rapidly improving. These are proper matters to consider, and they all relate, in most part, to future prospects. It was right for the jury to consider every fact that tended to give value to this property on the day it was taken. And, if the fact that a depot was likely to be erected in its vicinity had given...