Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Stanwood
| Decision Date | 17 February 1904 |
| Citation | 98 N.W. 656,71 Neb. 158 |
| Parties | UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. SARAH N. STANWOOD |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
AFFIRMED.
After reading the record and examining the two opinions in this case, I feel constrained to disagree with each, and to take the position that the judgment should be affirmed. While the question is in dispute, the better rule, and the one adhered to in this jurisdiction, seems to be that the value of real property may not be shown by proof of independent sales. Witnesses, who show themselves competent, may give their opinion as to value, and thereupon, on cross-examination may be asked as to particular sales in the neighborhood. Kerr v. South Park Commissioners, 117 U.S. 379, 29 L.Ed. 924 6 S.Ct. 801; 1 Jones, Evidence, sec. 165. But, it is said, if the witnesses to value may be cross-examined as to particular sales in order to test their knowledge, the test must be made effective by permitting further proof as to the facts and circumstances of the sales, so as to determine whether the witnesses correctly understood and stated them. On this ground, it is assumed that there is an exception to the general rule, and that proof of independent sales may be introduced following up such cross-examination. I have not been able to find any authorities in support of this proposition, and I can not accede to it. Every reason for excluding such evidence in the first instance applies to it when offered in support of cross-examination to test the opinion of an expert witness. It is obvious that when the sale of a particular tract for a particular price is shown, there are still many facts to consider, which may be very material. The nature of the sale, the situation of the parties, the relation of the lot sold to the one in controversy, and their comparative value, are only some of these questions. From an issue as to the value of the tract in controversy, the cause would soon branch into a series of disconnected controversies as to the facts and surrounding circumstances of an indefinite number of particular sales of other tracts. The parties can not know, until these collateral questions are raised, what they will be, nor are they prepared, always, to go into them in a satisfactory way. In the analogous case of cross-examination to impeach a witness, the cross-examiner must be satisfied with the answer given him, and is not suffered to enter upon an investigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wright
...inadequate or excessive, nor to show all the particular conditions under which the sales were made, and, as said in the case of Union P. R. Co. v. Stanwood, supra, were proof other sales allowed, "the cause would soon branch into a series of disconnected controversies as to the facts and su......
-
Rewick v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Company
... ... Such ... evidence is clearly incompetent. Union P. R. Co. v ... Stanwood, 71 Neb. 158, 98 N.W. 656 ... ...
-
Rushart v. Department of Roads and Irrigation
...Co. v. Griffith, 44 Neb. 690, 62 N.W. 868, and Union P. R. Co. v. Stanwood, also by dictum, 71 Neb. 150, 91 N.W. 191; on rehearing 71 Neb. 158, 98 N.W. 656. The holding in the case of State v. Wright, supra, is first direct pronouncement of the rule in this state. The appellees do not quest......