United States v. Freeman

• Citation: 113 F. 370
• Court: United States District Court, District of Washington, Northern Division
• Decision Date: 13 January 1902
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. FREEMAN et al.

113 F. 370

UNITED STATES v. FREEMAN et al.

United States District Court, D. Washington, Northern Division.

January 13, 1902

E. E Cushman, Asst. U.S. Atty.

Sachs &amp Hale, Tucker & Hyland, R. E. Moody, A. R. Coleman, W. W Felger, and A. W. Buddress, for defendants.

HANFORD District Judge.

This proceeding was instituted by the government of the United States for the purpose of appropriating a number of lots and parcels of land required by the government for military purposes, and to enlarge Ft. Worden. A special venire was issued for jurors, from whom 12 were selected and impaneled in the usual manner of selecting jurors, and sworn to determine all disputed questions of fact as to ownership of the property, and fix the valuation thereof, and assess any damages resulting to the owners from the taking of their property. As provided by the act of congress authorizing the condemnation of land required for fortifications (see 1 Supp. Rev. St. (2d Ed.) pp. 601, 780), the proceedings were conducted as near as practicable according to the procedure prescribed by the laws of this state. On the trial before the court and the jury there was no controversy as to the ownership of the property, and the jury was required only to determine the value and assess the damages. Witnesses, including business men of Port Townsend, were called on the part of the government, as well as of the owners, who gave their estimates of the value of the land and of the improvements thereon, and the court and jury visited the premises for the purpose of viewing the same, and, after returning to the court room, arguments were made to the jury by counsel representing all the parties, and the case was submitted to the jury with instructions by the court that they were to determine the reasonable value at the present time of the land sought to be condemned and the improvements thereon, and assess damages in favor of any of the owners who were shown by the evidence to have been damaged by the taking of their property, and afterwards the jury returned into court a separate verdict as to each of the different lots and parcels of land appropriated. Compared with the estimates testified to by the witnesses on the part of the government, the sums awarded are just and reasonable, but, measured by the testimony introduced by the defendants, the sums awarded are in some instances very much below the reasonable value. The defendants are dissatisfied with the verdicts, and have moved the court to set the same aside and grant a new trial on a number of specified grounds, all of which, by disregarding legal verbiage, may be resolved into the following: (1) Error in law committed by the court on the trial in excluding evidence offered by the defendants to prove the price of adjoining lands, which was fixed by agreement, and was paid by the government. (2) misconduct on the part of a superintending engineer in the employment of the government at the time the jury were taken to view the premises, in this: That said engineer conducted the jury to and upon lands other than the land to be condemned. (3) Error in the findings of the jury, in this: That the sums awarded by their verdicts are inadequate, and not sufficient to constitute just compensation for the property taken.

The price which a purchaser pays for one piece of property is not a fair criterion by which to determine the value of an adjoining tract several years after the transaction, for the reason that the necessity of the purchaser, the disposition of the vendor, and peculiar circumstances and conditions may be such as to oblige a purchaser to submit to severe exactions in order to consummate a purchase without delay. Therefore evidence of a particular transaction is likely to be misleading unless all the circumstances and conditions are explained, and it is not practicable for parties to be ready on the trial to produce witnesses to explain transactions not involved in the issues. It was for this reason that the court excluded the testimony offered by the defendants, and I believe now, as I believed at the time, that the evidence was incompetent. It...