Town of Canton v. Harris

• Decision Date: 03 January 1919
• Docket Number: 595.
• Citation: 97 S.E. 748,177 N.C. 10
• Parties: TOWN OF CANTON v. HARRIS ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

97 S.E. 748

177 N.C. 10

TOWN OF CANTON v. HARRIS ET AL.

No. 595.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

January 3, 1919

Appeal from Superior Court, Haywood County; Ferguson, Judge.

Proceeding by the Town of Canton against J. A. Harris and others for condemnation of several tracts of land necessary to protect the town's water supply. From a judgment on the verdict plaintiff excepted and appealed. New trial ordered.

In a proceeding by a town to condemn land, where the owner testified to its value, and on cross-examination admitted seeking to lower tax assessment, questions intended to show the valuation he requested of the equalization board, held improperly excluded.

This was a special proceeding under the statute applicable to condemn several tracts belonging to the respective defendants as necessary to protect the water supply of the town of Canton, tried on issues before his honor, Judge Ferguson, and a jury, at July term, 1918, of the superior court of Haywood county. The jury rendered the following verdict:

(1) What is the fair market value of the land of A. C. Walker taken by the plaintiff? Answer: $16,921.09.

(2) What damage, if any, has A. C. Walker suffered to the remaining portion of his tract of land? Answer: $1,000.

(3) What is the fair market value of the land of W. D McCracken, taken by the plaintiff? Answer: $12,393.90.

(4) What damage, if any, has W. D. McCracken suffered to the remaining portion of his tract of land? Answer: $150.

(5) What is the fair market value of the land of W. P. Ford taken by the plaintiff? Answer: $14,204.68.

(6) What damage, if any, has W. P. Ford suffered to the remaining portion of his tract of land? Answer: $275.

(7) What is the fair market value of the land of W. G. Ford, taken by the plaintiff? Answer: $2,256.25.

(8) What is the fair market value of the land of J. A. Harris, taken by the plaintiff? Answer: $3,482.50.

(9) What is the fair market value of the land of W. P. Harris, taken by the plaintiff? Answer: $2,490.62 1/2.

(10) What damage, if any, has W. P. Harris suffered to the remaining portion of his tract of land? Answer: $175.

Judgment on the verdict, and plaintiff, the town of Canton, excepted and appealed.

Martin, Rollins & Wright, of Asheville, and J. T. Horney, of Canton, for appellant.

Lee & Ford, of Asheville, Morgan & Ward, of Waynesville, and T. A. Clark, of Canton, for appellees.

HOKE J.

Appellant's objections are chiefly to the rulings of the court on questions of evidence:

(1) That defendant W. D. McCracken, who had testified that, in his opinion, the land of the witness, condemned for the purpose, was worth $175 to $200 per acre, admitted on cross-examination that he had appeared before the equalization board on the last assessment for taxes and tried to have the valuation of his land reduced. He was then asked, "To what figure did you try to get it reduced?" and, on objection, the question was excluded, and plaintiff excepted. Witness was then asked: "What assessment did you ask the commissioners to put upon your land?" Answer: "The same they had in Buncombe." Question: "The figure?" On objection, this was excluded, and exception taken. It was stated as the purpose to show by the witness that he had insisted on having the land in question valued at $8 per acre.

There was marked discrepancy in the evidence of the opposing parties on the question of value--that of defendants tending to show that much of the land, as stated, was worth $175 to $200 per acre; that of plaintiff putting it at a much lower figure. The testimony of this witness, the owner and supposed to be familiar with the uses and worth of the land, was well calculated to have great weight with the jury, and this proposed evidence having, as it did, a direct tendency to challenge or weaken the estimate of the witness was of the first importance on the issue, and, in our opinion, its exclusion must be held for reversible error. We are not unmindful of the ruling that the value of land, as assessed in the tax list, is not ordinarily evidence against the owner on the question of values, he having no part in fixing such valuation (Railroad v. Land Co., 137 N.C. 330, 49 S.E. 350, 68 L. R. A. 333, 107 Am. St. Rep. 490); but in this instance it was the act of the owner that was offered in evidence tending to show a lower estimate than the one given by him before the jury.

Again the witness A. C. Walker, testifying to the value of his land, was allowed to say that he had been offered $200 per acre for it within two years of the trial, and by one W. T. Shelton, who was financially able to comply. Plaintiff excepted, and the said W. T. Shelton, over plaintiff's objection, was allowed to testify that he had made an offer of $200 for A. C. Walker's land, and he was able to pay for it and made the offer in good faith. An unaccepted offer of this kind may be influenced by so many considerations entirely foreign to such an issue, and may put the opposing party at such disadvantage, affording him, as it does, no fair opportunity to either anticipate or combat it, that its reception as evidence has been very generally disapproved by the authorities on the subject. Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341, 24 S.Ct. 114, 48 L.Ed. 211; Fowler v. Commissioners, 88 Mass. (6 Allen) 92-96; Hine v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 132 N.Y. 477, 30 N.E. 985, 15 L. R. A. 591; Parke v. City of...