Stinson v. Chicago, St. Paul & Minneapolis Railway Company
| Decision Date | 09 October 1880 |
| Citation | 6 N.W. 784,27 Minn. 284 |
| Parties | James Stinson v. Chicago, St. Paul & Minneapolis Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by Stinson from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Wilkin, J., presiding, denying his motion for a new trial after a verdict awarding him $ 8,312.25 -- the same amount awarded him by the commissioners.
At the trial, it appearing that a bridge across a ravine would be necessary to connect Westminster avenue, as laid out on Stinson's property, with the travelled part of the same avenue, in the city of St. Paul, William Crooks, a civil engineer, called for the appellant, having testified to his qualifications as a civil engineer, and his knowledge of the locality, and having also testified that a bridge connecting these two points would not be an expensive structure, was asked, "About what, in your judgment, would be the cost of such a structure, being about 700 or 800 feet across?" The question was excluded, on respondent's objection, as immaterial and irrelevant, and the appellant excepted. The other exceptions taken are stated in the opinion.
Order affirmed.
Bigelow Flandrau & Clark and R. B. Galusha, for appellant.
The best evidence of the value of a piece of land is the price that people have from time to time paid for it; not what anyone thinks it ought to sell for. The mere opinions of witnesses as to value are not entitled to much consideration. Matter of William Street, 19 Wend. 678; Matter of Pearl Street, 19 Wend. 651; Lee v. Railroad Co., 13 Barb. 169. In some states opinions as to value are not admitted at all. Rochester v. Chester, 3 N.H. 349, 364; Peterborough v. Jaffrey, 6 N.H. 462; Beard v. Kirk, 11 N.H. 397; Hoitt v. Moulton, 1 Foster, (N. H.) 586.
Evidence of actual sales and leases of land similarly situated is admissible to prove value. Davis v. Railroad Co., 11 Cush. 506. In Patterson v. Boom Co., 3 Dillon, 468 the estimates of the witnesses as to the value of the property (an island in the Mississippi river) ranged from $ 300 to $ 20,000 or $ 30,000, and Dillon, J., instructed the jury that "if there have been sales of these islands, or of other islands similarly situated and adapted to the same uses, or contracts with landowners by the Boom Company for the use of other lands in the vicinity for boom purposes these may be resorted to by you, looking at all the circumstances of these sales and contracts, in the determination of the ultimate question of value; and ordinarily, actual sales and transactions are better evidence of value than mere opinions of witnesses on the subject." This case was affirmed in the U. S. supreme court, (Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403,) and will of course be the rule of decision in the federal courts on this point. The same rule was sanctioned in Lehmicke v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 19 Minn. 464; and was adopted in Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co., 122 Mass. 305; Paine v. Boston, 4 Allen, 168; Shattuck v. Stoneham Branch R. Co., 6 Allen, 115; Boston & Worcester R. Co. v. Old Colony R. Co., 3 Allen, 142; Wyman v. L. & W. R. Co., 13 Met. 316; St. Louis, Alton & T. H. R. Co. v. Haller, 82 Ill. 211; Jones v. C. & I. R. Co., 68 Ill. 380; Presbrey v. Old Colony R. Co., 103 Mass. 1.
The court erred in rejecting the question "What is the value of the land of the plaintiff in dispute here, for any and all purposes, including its adaptability for railroad purposes, taking into consideration that it cannot be used by the plaintiff for railroad purposes, but also taking into consideration the fact that it is adapted to railroad purposes." This is the very question framed by the court, and put to all the witnesses, in the case of Patterson v. Boom Co., 3 Dillon, 468. See Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403.
Davis, O'Brien & Wilson, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court for Ramsey county denying the appellant (Stinson's) motion for a new trial in condemnation proceedings. The report of the commissioners was filed June 25, 1879, and the trial in the district court took place in November following. The lands condemned consisted of some 70 lots and blocks in Stinson and Arlington Hills addition to St. Paul. In the district court, R. W. Johnson testified that he had had charge of Stinson's addition since it was laid out, in 1872. Had sold property in it for Stinson -- 20 or 30 lots. These sales were made during the last seven years. Last sale was Friday, week before last. Sold two lots in June or July, 1879, not far from the time this award was filed. They were in the immediate vicinity of this property. It was similar property (superficially considered) to that now in controversy. The ground from the south side slopes to the railroad, and there is a rise to the north side; so they are similarly situated, although, probably, a little steeper on the north side than on the south side. The sales were bona fide, to persons desiring to purchase, and who paid the money.
Question by appellant: "What were the prices for which that property was sold that you speak of?" Respondent's counsel objected, and questioned the witness for the purpose of forming a basis for the objection. The witness answered: "There are 77 acres in this addition -- about 480 lots; sold last spring lot 11, in block 13, and lot 11, in block 11; have sold other lots in this addition in the last seven years, along at different times, from year to year; can't give the dates when, within a year before selling those two lots, I sold any others; I sold five here two or three days ago; should say that I have sold three or four within a year from June 25, 1879." Respondent's counsel then objected to the appellant's question as incompetent and immaterial, and not evidence of the value of the condemned property under the situation testified to. The court excluded the question, and appellant excepted. The witness then testified that the lots spoken of, as having been sold by him in the immediate vicinity of this property, are of the same size and similarly situated as lots in the property in dispute; "they are similarly situated with lots opposite them on the land in dispute, though not situated exactly alike; they are both on an inclined plane; one is more inclined than the other; they are a little steeper on the side the railroad wants to condemn; I know what these 30 or 40 lots, that have been sold there, were sold for." Upon this foundation the appellant asked the witness: "What has been the average value, or the average price, for which those lots have sold?" The question was objected to as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and was excluded by the court, appellant excepting.
1. Whether these questions were properly excluded is the principal subject of inquiry in this case. We think the questions were properly excluded for several reasons. If it be admitted that evidence of the price at which property similar in character and situation to other property sought to be condemned was sold, is admissible to show the value of the latter property, as is held in some states, -- notably in Massachusetts, --...
To continue reading
Request your trial