Viliborghi v. Prescott School District No. 1 of Yavapai County

• Decision Date: 18 March 1940
• Docket Number: Civil 4181
• Citation: 55 Ariz. 230,100 P.2d 178
• Parties: ROCCO VILIBORGHI and AQUILINA VILIBORGHI, His Wife, Appellants, v. PRESCOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1 OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA, a Political Subdivision and a Body Corporate and Politic, Appellee
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

100 P.2d 178

55 Ariz. 230

ROCCO VILIBORGHI and AQUILINA VILIBORGHI, His Wife, Appellants, v. PRESCOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1 OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA, a Political Subdivision and a Body Corporate and Politic, Appellee

Civil No. 4181

Supreme Court of Arizona

March 18, 1940

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yavapai. Richard Lamson, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. T J. Byrne, for Appellants.

Mr Charles L. Ewing, County Attorney of Yavapai County, and Mr John R. Franks, Deputy County Attorney of Yavapai County, for Appellee.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, J.

This is an action by Prescott School District No. 1, hereinafter called plaintiff, against Rocco Viliborghi and Aquilina Viliborghi, his wife, hereinafter called defendants, and a number of others, to condemn certain real estate belonging to defendants, for public school purposes. The matter was tried to the court sitting without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendants for the sum of thirty-five hundred dollars, and from such judgment they have appealed.

There is but one question before us, and that is whether the evidence sustains the judgment. The rule applying to situations of this kind has been declared many times by this court, and may be stated as follows: If any reasonable evidence supports the judgment of the lower court, it will be sustained. Blackford v. Neaves, 23 Ariz. 501, 205 P. 587. If the judgment is based upon conflicting testimony, the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed. First Baptist Church v. Connor, 30 Ariz. 234, 245 P. 932. And this rule applies to cases where the conflict in the evidence is between expert or opinion evidence as to the value of property, as well as to direct evidence. State Tax Com. v. United Verde Extension Min. Co., 39 Ariz. 136, 4 P.2d 395. These rules are not questioned by either party. It is their application that is in issue.

We have laid down the test as to the value of property in condemnation proceedings in the case of Mandl v. City of Phoenix, 41 Ariz. 351, 18 P.2d 271, 273, as being

"'the highest price estimated in terms of money which the land would bring if exposed for sale in the open market, with reasonable time allowed in which to find a purchaser, buying with knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which it was adapted and for which it was capable.'" Nor do defendants question this. But how should that value be determined? Our statute on condemnation proceedings is taken from California, and the procedure which the courts of that state have followed in such cases is very persuasive. In City of Los Angeles v. Deacon, 119 Cal.App. 491, 7 P.2d 378, the Supreme Court of California lays down the rule as follows:

"But conceding that all these facts would be taken into consideration by one endeavoring to determine the market value of a piece of property, it is nevertheless the settled law of this state that none of them may be proven for the purpose of establishing the market value. The procedure which is recognized as proper is, for the witness when found to be qualified to give an opinion as an expert, to state, first what is, in his judgment, the market value of the property. [Citing case]. On this, the examination in chief, it may not be shown: For what sum the property was assessed [citing cases]; nor the value placed upon it by the appraisers in a probate proceeding, [citing cases]; nor the price offered for the property being condemned, [citing cases]; nor yet that offered or paid for lands in the neighborhood, [citing cases]. 'He should not be asked regarding specific facts in the examination in chief.' [Citing case]. On cross-examination, however, questions may be asked about...