Thompson v. City of Boston

• Decision Date: 05 January 1889
• Citation: 148 Mass. 387,19 N.E. 406
• Parties: THOMPSON et al. v. CITY OF BOSTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

148 Mass. 387

19 N.E. 406

THOMPSON et al. v. CITY OF BOSTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 5, 1889

COUNSEL

R.M. Morse, Jr., and B.S. Ladd, for petitioners.

A.J Bailey, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON C.J.

The defendant called as a witness the chairman of the board of assessors of the city of Boston, who testified as to the value of the land in controversy. In cross-examination the plaintiff asked him if he assessed the adjoining land of the plaintiff in May, 1878, and May, 1879, and at what price. The court excluded the question, and the plaintiff excepted. In order to determine the value of land taken for public use, it is sometimes competent to put in evidence sales of adjoining or neighboring land; but this can only be done when the situation and condition of the two pieces of land are substantially the same, so that the value of one furnishes a fair test of the value of the other. The question whether they are similar in situation and condition must be determined in the first instance by the presiding justice and the admission of such evidence is very largely within his discretion. But it is not competent to put in the opinion or judgment of witnesses as to the value of other land in the vicinity. Shattuck v. Railroad, 6 Allen, 115.

The evidence offered, therefore, was not admissible as substantive evidence of the value of the land taken. This the plaintiff concedes, but he claims that it was admissible in cross-examination, because it is in the nature of an admission by the witness, inconsistent with his testimony in chief. He testified in chief, that, in his opinion, the petitioner's land taken was worth 10 to 12 cents per foot. If we assume that he assessed the adjoining land at a higher valuation, this expression of his opinion would not be inconsistent with his testimony, unless he appraised the two pieces of land upon the basis that they were substantially similar. But it appeared that he did not assess the land in controversy in 1878 and 1879, because he supposed the city had taken it for a park in 1877. The land was not in fact taken by the city until December, 1879, but the witness assessed the remaining land of the petitioner in 1878 and 1879, upon the basis that it had an enhanced value by the appropriation of the adjoining land for a public park. His two statements as to the value of the two pieces of land are not inconsistent, because they are...