Housing Authority v. Coppola

Connecticut Superior Court

Housing Authority v. Coppola

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 322, 8 Conn. Supp. 322, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 119

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 16, 1940

DocketFile 58396

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 322 (Housing Authority v. Coppola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Housing Authority v. Coppola, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 322, 8 Conn. Supp. 322, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 119 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINLAN, J.

This case presents the following question: Was the committee in error in sustaining the Housing Authority’s objection to introduction of testimony to show what the Housing Authority had paid other property owners in the same area for property purchased by negotiation.

This proposition is not a disturbing one and the action of the committee is in accordance with the prevailing rule. Eames vs. So. New Hampshire Hydro-Electric Corp., 85 N.H. 379, 382. In Lewis on Eminent Domain (3rd ed. 1909) §667, such evidence is declared to be incompetent because “such sales are not a fair criterion of value, for the reason that they [purchases *323 by the party condemning] are in the nature of a compromise. They are affected by an element which does not enter into' similar transactions made in the ordinary course of business. The one party may force a sale at such a price as may be fixed by the tribunal appointed by law. In most cases the same party must have the particular property, even if it costs more than its-true value. The fear of one party or the other to take the risk of legal proceedings ordinarily results in the one party paying more or the other taking less than is considered to be the fair market value of the property.” The committee was-not in error in declining to receive such evidence.

The demurrer to the remonstrance is sustained, the remom strance is overruled, the report accepted and judgment may be-rendered in accordance therewith.

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

QUINLAN, J.

This case presents the following question: Was the committee in error in sustaining the Housing Authority’s objection to introduction of testimony to show what the Housing Authority had paid other property owners in the same area for property purchased by negotiation.

This proposition is not a disturbing one and the action of the committee is in accordance with the prevailing rule. Eames vs. So. New Hampshire Hydro-Electric Corp., 85 N.H. 379, 382. In Lewis on Eminent Domain (3rd ed. 1909) §667, such evidence is declared to be incompetent because “such sales are not a fair criterion of value, for the reason that they [purchases *323 by the party condemning] are in the nature of a compromise. They are affected by an element which does not enter into' similar transactions made in the ordinary course of business. The one party may force a sale at such a price as may be fixed by the tribunal appointed by law. In most cases the same party must have the particular property, even if it costs more than its-true value. The fear of one party or the other to take the risk of legal proceedings ordinarily results in the one party paying more or the other taking less than is considered to be the fair market value of the property.” The committee was-not in error in declining to receive such evidence.

The demurrer to the remonstrance is sustained, the remom strance is overruled, the report accepted and judgment may be-rendered in accordance therewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 322, 8 Conn. Supp. 322, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/housing-authority-v-coppola-connsuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack