W. A. Manda, Inc. v. Del., L. & W. R. Co.

• Citation: 98 A. 467
• Decision Date: 19 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 22.,22.
• Parties: W. A. MANDA, Inc., v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

98 A. 467

W. A. MANDA, Inc.,

v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.

No. 22.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 19, 1916.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.

Action by W. A. Manda, Incorporated, against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, lessee of the Morris & Essex Railroad Company, to fix the damages for condemnation. From the judgment, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey, of Jersey City, for appellant. M. M. Stallman, of Newark, for appellee.

BLACK, J. This case was tried in the Essex circuit court. It is an appeal from the verdict of a jury, fixing the amount of money to be paid by the respondent for taking land under condemnation for its additional right of way. The strip of land taken, with the plants and shrubbery growing thereon, is in the village of South Orange. The dimensions of the land are about 20 to 62 feet in width and 1,000 feet in length, containing a trifle less than nine-tenths of an acre.

The errors assigned for the reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict of the jury are alleged trial errors. There are seventeen assignments of error and they are directed to the exclusion and admission of testimony over the objections of the appellant, alleged errors in the charge of the court to the jury, and the refusal by the trial court to charge as requested. It would serve no useful purpose to bring under discussion, in detail, all the alleged errors argued by the appellant in this case. Some of the more important ones, however, may be noticed briefly. Thus Louis R. Hereon, a witness, who described himself as having been engaged in the building business to a certain extent, building large barns and houses, was not permitted to testify as to the value of the brick buildings on a certain piece of land, which had been put in evidence for comparison. This was not harmful error; nor was it error to exclude this question put to the appellant, Mr. Manda:

"Now, will you tell us, if you are able to, what percentage of decrease in the valuation of this shaded land will probably arise because of this embankment concerning which you have testified, and the proposed use of this property for railroad purposes?"

This was ruled out on the ground that the evidence sought to be elicited was speculative. And so a question put to the same witness, "What allowance you made for the value of the buildings on the Pierson property?" was overruled on the ground that the witness had not qualified on the question of value. Who is entitled to be considered as an expert, from the nature of the case, must be left very much to the discretion of the trial judge, and his decision is conclusive, unless clearly shown to be erroneous in matter of law. New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Lehigh Zinc Co., 59 N. J. Law, 194, 35 Atl. 915; Elvins v. Delaware, etc., Tel. Co., 63 N. J. Law, 247, 43 Atl. 903, 76 Am. St. Rep. 217.

So the admission of evidence as to the amount paid for Cameron Field. This was objected to, on the ground of dissimilarity between that and the property under consideration. This manifestly was within the discretion of the trial judge. In this class of cases there is no inflexible rule, which limits the period of time or the distance over which the inquiry may be extended, as to the market value of other lands, or the situation or use of such lands in the...