Note on Evidence of Value of Neighboring Premises.

at which adjoining property sold at auction is admissible, as tending to show the course of values.

The court say: "We think that if, in these actions, the course of values could be shown by actual sales, it would form a more certain basis than the speculations of experts of their mere expressions of opinion as to the rise and fall of values in particular localities."

Blanchard v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 59 N. Y. 292. It is not competent upon the question of the value of a vessel which had been sunk, to prove the value of other vessels with which she might be compared.

Gouge v. Roberts, 53 V. Y. 619. Upon the question of the value of an ice house, a witness cannot be asked what it cost him to construct a similar ice house; as such question raises a collateral issue, leading to a comparison between the different structures.

Golden v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 630; S. C., 1 Misc. Rep. 142; 48 State Rep. 725. In an action by a property owner against an elevated railway, evidence that the rent of particular houses on an adjacent street was higher before the construction of the road, is inadmissible; but it is competent to show that the general course of rentals in the adjacent street was lower since the construction of the road.

Thompson v. Manhattan Railway Co., 29 State Rep. 720; S. C., 8 N. Y. Supp. 641. Testimony of a witness as to what rent he paid for premises in an adjacent street not on the line of the railroad is properly rejected, where it has not been shown under what circumstances he occupied the premises, and why the landlord was induced to receive the rent he did.

Matter of Thompson, 5 N. Y. Supp. 370; S. C., 24 State Rep. 433. In a condemnation proceeding, it is not error to exclude evidence as to the amount paid for property about a mile from the property sought to be taken; the admission of such testimony would raise numerous collateral issues, without furnishing any legitimate aid for the determination of the value of the property in question.

Spring Valley Water Works v. Drinkhouse, 92 Cal. 528 ; S. C., 28 Pacific Rep. 681. In a proceeding to condemn land for public use, -held, that a witness for defendant could not be asked on direct examination as to how much plaintiff had paid per acre for other tracts of land, or as to offers made by plaintiff for the purchase of such tracts.

S. P. Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Pearson, 35 Cal. 247.

East Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hiester, 40 Pa. St. 53. On the

Note on Evidence of Value of Neighboring Premises.

trial of an appeal from the award of damages by appraisers for land taken by railroad company, in the construction of their road, evidence of the price paid or amount received for land in the neighborhood is inadmissible; the only proper test is the opinion of witnesses as to the value of the land taken, in view of its location and productiveness, its market value, or the general selling price in the neighborhood.

S. P. Pennsylvania & N. Y. Canal R. R. Co. v. Bunnell, 2 W. N. C. 633.

Stinson v. Chicago, St. Paul, etc.. Railway Co., 27 Minn. 284. In proceedings for the condemnation of land for railroad purposes, evidence of what other similar lands in the vicinity sold for, from time to time, is incompetent and inadmissible.

Galway . Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 47; S. C., 35 State Rep. 628. In an action against an elevated railway, by an abutting property owner, it was held not reversible error, to allow an expert witness, against defendant's objection, to be asked as to the value of adjoining premises, which sustained the same relation to defendant's structure as plaintiff's premises.

Sherlock v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 130 Ill. 403. On assessment of compensation to be paid for city lots taken for railway purposes, a witness for the petitioner testified that he was engaged in the real estate business in the same city, and had charge of certain lots which he was offering for sale at a certain price per foot. --Held, that the admission of such testimony was error.

Montclair R. R. Co. v. Benson, 36 N. J. L. 557. In assessing damages for land taken by a railway, a real estate agent as a witness was asked "at what price he had offered for sale, since the summer of 1871, the property adjoining that of plaintiffs."-Held, that the answer to such question was properly excluded since, if admitted, it would tend to introduce collateral issues.

Exception when no better evidence. Langdon v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y. City, 133 N. Y. 628. Action for damages against New York City for building a bulkhead outside of plaintiffs' wharf. The plaintiffs had no ownership of the fee and no visible or tangible property, the extent of which could be measured, defined or described; but they had acquired from the State and municipality, by grant, valuable incorporeal rights to collect wharfage and to lease their rights. The expert testimony as to the value of the property was unduly divergent, and property of like character had for several years prior to the taking of the property in question, ceased to have a market value, by reason of a statute authorizing the city to purchase such

Note on Evidence of Value of Neighboring Premises.

property.-Held, that the admission of evidence of the prices paid by the city for similar adjacent property, on the question of damages, was not a sufficient ground for reversal, it being the best evidence obtainable.

Distinguishing Matter of Thompson, 127 N. Y. 463.

Culbertson & Blair Packing, etc., Co. v. City of Chicago, 111 Ill. 651. In a suit to recover damages to land from the erection of a viaduct in a street adjacent thereto,-held, that as it did not appear that the property had a regular market value, and the expert testimony was variant, from the very necessity of the case, actual sales of property in the vicinity and near the time were competent evidence as to value.

Batterson v. Boom Co., 3 Dill. 465. In a proceeding by a boom company to condemn wild land, the court charged the jury that "ordinarily, actual sales or transactions are better evidence of value than the mere opinions of witnesses on the subject; especially where the value concerns property for which there is not a market demand, or a known or easily ascertainable general value."

Objection. Bischoff v. N. Y. Elevated Railway Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 865; s. C., 46 State Rep. 863. In an action against an elevated railway, plaintiff was allowed to give evidence as to the rents of adjoining premises against defendant's objection, that the evidence was irrelevant, and did not relate to the premises in question and was not within the issues.-Held, that the admission of such evidence was not error, there having been no special objection taken that the rent of such property was a matter of bargaining between others than the parties to the suit.

Leale v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 419; S. C., 41 State Rep. 904. In an action by a property owner against an elevated railway, it is error to allow plaintiff to testify as to what an adjoining owner asked for a house similar to plaintiff's, against defendant's objection that such testimony is irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent and hearsay.

Hunt v. City of Boston, 152 Mass. 168; 25 Northeast Rep. 82. On cross-examination of a witness as to the value of real property, he was asked what lot of land, of the sale of which he knew, was nearest to the petitioner's land.-Held, that on re-examination the witness could not testify at what price such lot of land was sold, where the price of such lot was not otherwise competent evidence as to the value of the property in controversy.

Pennsylvania, etc., Railway Co. v. Ziemer, 124 Pa. St. 560 ; S. C.,

Note on Evidence of Value of Neighboring Premises.

17 Atlantic Rep. 187. In an action against a railroad company for damages occasioned by the building of a railway in a street adjacent to plaintiff's premises, a witness for plaintiff testified as to the manner in which the construction of the road injured the market value of plaintiff's property.-Held, that the witness could not be cross-examined as to what the company paid in settlement of injuries to other properties near to that of plaintiff.

Simpson v. N. Y. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 14 Weekly Dig. 380. A witness as to the value of a cow testified that he had sold cows,held, that it was error not to permit such witness to be asked, on cross-examination, what prices he had obtained for cows.

Whitman v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 89 Mass. (7 Allen), 313A petitioner for damages to land, a part of which has been taken for a railroad, may be asked on cross-examination, for what price he sold the residue of the lot, seventeen years thereafter.

Chicago, Kansas, etc., R. R. Co. v. Muller, 45 Kan. 85; s. C., 25 Pacific, Rep 210. A witness being cross-examined as to his knowledge of values of real estate, volunteered the statement that he had sold certain property at a stated price. The court refused defendant's request to strike out such statement.—Held, that this was error.

MASSACHUSETTS RULE. PRICE OF SUCH OTHER PROPERTY ADMISSIBLE.

III. Massachusetts Rule Admitting. Actual Prices of Other Premises.

Roberts v. City of Boston, 149 Mass. 346; S. C., 21 Northeast Rep. 668. Evidence of sales of other similar estates in the neighborhood at or about the time at which the value of the land in controversy is sought to be established is competent.

Benham v. Dunbar, 103 Mass. 365. On issue as to the value of low lands and flats on an island in Boston harbor; it was held no error to admit evidence of the price of other lands sold at different times from one to eight years before on islands and headlands in the harbor from one-half to six miles distant; in absence of evidence of more recent sales or as to any great difference of the uses to which these islands and headlands were appropriated.

The fact that there are buildings on the land compared does not change the rule.

Patch v. Boston, 146 Mass. 52. On assessment of damages for the taking of improved property by a city, evidence in the city's behalf as to the price for property with buildings thereon in the same street a few months after the taking of petitioner's property is

Note on Evidence of Value of Neighboring Premises.

admissible in absence of evidence that the buildings on the property sold were dissimilar to those on petitioner's land.

Shattuck v. Stoneham Branch R. R. Co., 88 Mass. (6 Allen), 115. Though in a proceeding for the assessment of damages caused by the location of a railway, the petitioner may testify as to his opinion of the amount of damage which he has sustained and may prove the actual recent sales of other lands in the vicinity, he cannot introduce in evidence the opinions of others as to the value of other land in the vicinity.

Paine v. City of Boston, 86 Mass. (4 Allen), 168. In assessing damages for the taking of land for a street, it is error to reject evidence of the sales of land on the same street within 176 feet of the land taken, upon the ground that it is too remote.

Seattle & Montana Ry. Co. v. Gilchrist, 4 Wash. St. 509; s. C., 30 Pacific Rep. 738. In determining the market value of a particular tract of land in condemnation proceedings, it is proper to allow proof of the sale of similar property at or near the time of appropriating such land.

Gardner v. Inhabitants of Brookline, 127 Mass. 358. In proceedings for the assessment of damages for land taken by a town, a witness for the petitioner testified that the land in question was suitable for the production of cranberries, another witness was allowed to testify for the respondent to an actual sale at or about the time of the taking of land equally suitable for raising cranberries, situated in an adjoining town within half a mile of the river on which the land in question bordered,-held, that the petitioner had no ground of exception.

In Concord R. R. Co. v. Greely, 23 N. H. 237, 242, the court say: "When the value of a piece of land is to be decided by a jury it has been the general practice in this State to admit evidence of the sales of other lands similarly situated, in the vicinity of that in question, which were made about the time that the value is to be settled."

Town of Cherokee v. S. C., etc., Land Co., 52 Iowa, 279. In proceedings to assess the value of land taken for a street, evidence of the price at which other tracts of land in the same neighborhood have been sold is admissible; the difference in location, character and value between them and the tract in question being shown.

Not admissible under Massachusetts rule. Presbrey v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 103 Mass. 1. In a proceeding to assess damages to vacant lands caused by the location of a railway, evidence is not admissible to show the sum paid by the railway company for adjoining land,