Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Smith

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Smith

519 S.W.2d 64, 257 Ark. 617, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1837

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 17, 1975

Docket74-260

StatusPublished

This text of 519 S.W.2d 64 (Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Smith, 519 S.W.2d 64, 257 Ark. 617, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1837 (Ark. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In this condemnation case the Highway Commission appeals from a verdict and judgment fixing the landowners’ compensation at $4,000. The testimony of the landowners’ expert witness, a professional appraiser with 44 years’ experience, amply supports the verdict. Nor was there any error in the court’s refusal to strike the “before” value testimony of Carlton A. Smith, one of the owners. He had lived in the community for 27 years and had watched the sales of land in the area through the years. He valued his farm at $2,000 an acre and stated on cross-examination, without objection, that he had been offered that amount for his land. Such an offer, like hearsay, is not admissible as proof of value, but we have held that hearsay testimony, if not objected to, may support a verdict. Ark. State Highway Commn. v. Bradford, 252 Ark. 1037, 482 S.W. 2d 107 (1972). An offer falls in the same category. It was not shown that the offer in question was not an adequate basis for Smith’s opinion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In this condemnation case the Highway Commission appeals from a verdict and judgment fixing the landowners’ compensation at $4,000. The testimony of the landowners’ expert witness, a professional appraiser with 44 years’ experience, amply supports the verdict. Nor was there any error in the court’s refusal to strike the “before” value testimony of Carlton A. Smith, one of the owners. He had lived in the community for 27 years and had watched the sales of land in the area through the years. He valued his farm at $2,000 an acre and stated on cross-examination, without objection, that he had been offered that amount for his land. Such an offer, like hearsay, is not admissible as proof of value, but we have held that hearsay testimony, if not objected to, may support a verdict. Ark. State Highway Commn. v. Bradford, 252 Ark. 1037, 482 S.W. 2d 107 (1972). An offer falls in the same category. It was not shown that the offer in question was not an adequate basis for Smith’s opinion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 S.W.2d 64, 257 Ark. 617, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arkansas-state-highway-commission-v-smith-ark-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack