The Evansville And Richmond Railroad Co. v. Swift
| Decision Date | 08 April 1891 |
| Docket Number | 15,246 |
| Parties | The Evansville and Richmond Railroad Company v. Swift |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Jackson Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
M. F Dunn and G. G. Dunn, for appellant.
W. K Marshall, for appellee.
The appellant filed its instrument of appropriation with the clerk of the Jackson Circuit Court, and sought to condemn and appropriate, for its use, certain lands of the appellee. Appraisers were duly appointed to assess such damages as the appellee would sustain by reason of such appropriation. The appraisers made their award, and filed the same with the clerk of said court. The appellee, at the proper time, filed his exceptions, claiming the amount awarded to him was insufficient. The cause was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury, who assessed the appellee's damages at $ 640. The appraisers assessed his damages at $ 200.
The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the court, and exceptions reserved.
Judgment for appellee for $ 640, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
The alleged errors complained of and discussed relate to the rulings of the court on the introduction of evidence.
Charles Leminger, a witness for appellee, was asked to "state how much the Swift land was worth per acre before the road ran through it." The appellant, at the time, objected, for the reason "that it was not the proper way to prove the market value of the land, no proper basis having been laid, and as calling for a mere opinion." The court overruled the objection, and the appellant excepted.
The witness answered that "it was worth two hundred and fifty dollars per acre before the road was made, and now the little piece is worthless and the large piece is worth two hundred dollars per acre."
As we interpret the objection stated to the question, if it presents any objection which can be considered, it is that the question was not competent, for the reason that it is incompetent to prove the value of the land before the road ran through it, for the purpose of determining the amount of damage, and for the further reason that it called for a mere opinion of the witness. The statement that "no proper basis having been laid" can have no definite application, unless it is intended as an objection on account of the witness not having shown any qualification to speak as to its value, and we do not think it can be interpreted as an objection on that ground. If it can be so interpreted, it is not well taken, as the witness had shown some knowledge of the value of lands in the vicinity and an acquaintance with the particular land in question. The phase of the objection relating to its not being a proper method of proving damages has been settled by this court adversely to the theory of the appellant, as it has been held that it is proper to prove by competent witnesses the value of the land without the road across it, and the value with it divided by the road into parcels, and that it is proper for the jury to consider such evidence in assessing the damages. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pugh, 85 Ind. 279; Indiana, etc., R. W. Co. v. Allen, 100 Ind. 409.
The same question is presented as to the ruling of the court on objections to questions propounded to several witnesses. The witness, Mitchell, stated, in answer to a question, that "the little piece of land is worthless now," and added: "I will not give twenty-five dollars per acre for it; the large piece is worth $ 200 per acre." The appellant moved to strike out the answer. Some part of the answer was competent, and it was not error to overrule the motion as made.
We have examined all the questions presented. They are similar to those already stated.
There is no error in the record for which the judgment should be reversed.
The appeal in this case presents a question of jurisdiction,--as to whether or not,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evansville & R.R. Co. v. Swift
... ... Railroad Co. v. Pugh, 85 Ind. 279; Rail road Co. v. Allen, 100 Ind. 409.The same question is presented as to the ruling of the court on objections to ... ...