Bowie Lumber Co. v. United States

155 F.2d 225, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3893
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 8, 1946
DocketNo. 11154
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 155 F.2d 225 (Bowie Lumber Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowie Lumber Co. v. United States, 155 F.2d 225, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3893 (5th Cir. 1946).

Opinion

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

The United States, in July 1943, filed in court its petition to condemn in fee simple the property here involved, together with a declaration of taking, under authority of 40 U.S.C.A. §§ 257 and 258a. The amount of $60,107.00 as estimated just compensation for the property was deposited in court. On July 9, 1943, the court entered judgment on the declaration of taking, entering a decree vesting title in the United States and awarding possession beginning August 14, 1943.

[227]*227The purpose of the condemnation was to provide clinical facilities under the authority of the Lanham Act of October 14, 1940, c. 862, 54 Stat. 1125, as amended by the Act of June 28, 1941, c. 260, 55 Stat. 361, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1531-1534.

The property condemned consisted of a lot in the City of New Orleans, Louisiana, on the southwest corner of Poydras and Carondelet Streets, and measured 72 feet on Poydras and 77 feet on Carondelet. The lot was occupied by two buildings. The first was a four-story brick building standing on the corner and extending approximately 50 feet on Poydras and about 75 feet on Carondelet. The remainder of the lot was occupied by the second building, a one-story brick and stucco structure with a frontage of 19 or 20 feet on Poydras Street.

The Poydras Building was erected in 1896-1897 by the Southern Bell Telephone Company, whose special needs it was peculiarly designed to met, and was not constructed for office purposes. At the time of taking, the fittings were old-fashioned and its ceiling heights excessive; it was not air-conditioned, or even piped for hot water. Its wiring was for direct current, and conversion to alternating current, as required by ordinance upon change in occupancy of the building, would have required installation of a new elevator motor. The attic was an air space from six to eight feet high, entirely unfinished, accessible only by stairs and of no use except for storage. One witness testifying for the owner, and who had never seen the attic, thought it would have an annual rental value of 25 cents a square foot, but another witness for the owner, and who had been rental agent for the building, was unable to fix any rental value for the attic. Witnesses for the Government testified that the attic had no rental value, and also testified that the building was in a rather undesirable location. It was used for office purposes by the owner and various tenants, but its construction made such use unsatisfactory and it had been largely vacant, even through times of great demand. Operation by the owner showed a book profit of $1,715 for the year 1942. However, the owner itself occupied 1000 square feet for which it showed a charge of $2.40 per square foot per year, whereas other tenants were being charged only from 70 cents to $1.36 per square foot. One of the owner’s witnesses testified that the charge of $2.40 was excessive, and the owner, after the condemnation, was able to secure a class A air-conditioned building for $1.50 a square foot. Government witnesses testified that $1.00 a square foot was high rental for the building. Furthermore, forty-six years of the building’s estimated life of seventy-five years had passed and the owner’s statement made no allowance for depreciation. Neither did it allow for management costs, and its estimate of labor costs was low. From a consideration of all the evidence it was open to the jury to find that little or no net profit from operation of the building was shown. The small building on the lot was vacant, but witnesses fixed its rental value at from $75 to $100 a month.

Much testimony was introduced as to rents and sale prices of other buildings which were described and compared with the buildings here involved. There was also testimony as to actual and potential net and gross return from use of this property for offices. All the witnesses who testified on this subject agreed that the best use of the Poydras Building would be for single occupancy of the entire building, or at least of whole floors.

Witnesses for the United States valued the property at $61,500, $61,000, and $60,-107; while witnesses for the owner valued the property at $75,000 and $73,300. The jury returned a verdict for $62,025.84, for which amount judgment was entered.

Decision must turn upon whether the court committed prejudicial error in excluding from evidence.: (1) extracts from assessment rolls covering the condemned property; (2) a certified copy of an ordinance of the City of New Orleans authorizing the Mayor to lease the condemned property from the United States; (3) testimony of owner’s witness concerning a certified copy of a lease of the condemned property from the United States to the City of New Orleans; (4) estimate of the original cost and cost of [228]*228reproduction of the condemned property; and (5) rental paid by owner at the time of trial for an office in which it was keeping records formerly stored in the attic of one of the condemned buildings.

The court in declining to permit the owner to introduce certified copies' of extracts from the parish assessment rolls for the years 1940 through 1943, as proof of the market value of the property, committed no prejudicial error. Louisiana Ry. & Navigation Co. v. Morere, 116 La. 997, 41 So. 236; Louisiana Highway Commission v. Guidry, 176 La. 389, 404, 146 So. 1; Cf. McCandless v. United States, 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 596; United States v. First National Bank, D.C., 250 F. 299; Redman v. United States, 4 Cir., 136 F.2d 203; Louisiana Highway Commission v. DeBouchel, 174 La. 968, 973, 142 So. 142.

The great weight of authority holds that, except as declarations against interest, assessments are not admissible as evidence of value in condemnation proceedings. Orgel, Valuation under Eminent Domain, (1936), Sec. 150, pp. 509, 513; In re United States Commission, 54 App. D.C. 129, 295 F. 950; Johnson & Wimsatt v. Reichelderfer, 60 App.D.C. 186, 50 F.2d 336; United States v. 711.57 Acres of Land, etc., D.C., 51 F.Supp. 30; Cf. Westchester County Park Commission v. United States, 2 Cir., 143- F.2d 688, 694, cert. denied, 323 U.S. 726, 65 S.Ct. 59, 89 L.Ed. 583.

Moreover, if it was error to decline the introduction of the parish assessment rolls of the property, it becomes manifest that it was error without injury, since the owner was permitted to introduce over objection, and for all purposes, its receipts for state and city taxes for the year 1943, which showed such assessments to be $75,000.

An ordinance was passed by the City of New Orleans empowering the Mayor to lease the Poydras Building from the United States for five months with an option to renew the lease for one year, at an annual rental of $5,000.00. The court committed no reversible error in refusing to permit the introduction of this ordinance. Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341, 348, 350, 24 S.Ct. 114, 48 L.Ed. 211; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 132 F.2d 959, 963; United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, etc., 5 Cir., 149 F.2d 81.

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

Related

Tarrify Properties, LLC v. Cuyahoga County
37 F.4th 1101 (Sixth Circuit, 2022)
Fakhoury v. O'Reilly
E.D. Michigan, 2022
United States v. Percy Smith and Ella Smith
355 F.2d 807 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)
Ujvari v. United States
212 F. Supp. 223 (S.D. New York, 1963)
United States v. 206.82 Acres of Land
205 F. Supp. 91 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1962)
People v. Amadeo
82 P.R. 98 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1961)
Pueblo v. Amadeo
82 P.R. Dec. 102 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1961)
United States v. Buxton Lines, Inc.
165 F.2d 993 (Fourth Circuit, 1948)
Murdock v. United States
160 F.2d 358 (Eighth Circuit, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 F.2d 225, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowie-lumber-co-v-united-states-ca5-1946.