Howe v. Howard

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Howe v. Howard

33 N.E. 528, 158 Mass. 278, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 284

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 33 N.E. 528 (Howe v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howe v. Howard, 33 N.E. 528, 158 Mass. 278, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 284 (Mass. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Barker, J.

Assuming that the land taken by the Commonwealth was similar to and in the same vicinity with that the value of which was in issue, and that the taking was sufficiently near in point of time to make evidence of a sale competent under the familiar rule stated in Chandler v. Jamaica Pond [279]*279Aqueduct, 122 Mass. 305, testimony as to the amount received by its owner as damages awarded by a jury for its taking was incompetent. In Wyman v. Lexington & West Cambridge Railroad, 13 Met. 316, 326, Dewey, J., after deciding that evidence of an actual sale of adjacent land was competent, gaid: “ If it had been a price fixed by a jury, or in any way compulsorily paid by the party, the evidence of such payment would be inadmissible.” A price so fixed represents only the opinion of those who make it, and, as the grounds and reasons of their opinion are not known, and they cannot be presumed to have been qualified experts, and cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the parties whose rights the evidence will affect, their opinion is not competent evidence to show the value of other land. In White v. Fitchburg Railroad, 4 Cush. 440, it was held that evidence of the amount paid under an award of arbitrators for adjoining land taken from another owner by the same defendant was rightly excluded. See also Cobb v. Boston, 112 Mass. 181, 184; Providence & Worcester Railroad v. Worcester, 155 Mass. 35, 40. Exceptions overruled.

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

Barker, J.

Assuming that the land taken by the Commonwealth was similar to and in the same vicinity with that the value of which was in issue, and that the taking was sufficiently near in point of time to make evidence of a sale competent under the familiar rule stated in Chandler v. Jamaica Pond [279]*279Aqueduct, 122 Mass. 305, testimony as to the amount received by its owner as damages awarded by a jury for its taking was incompetent. In Wyman v. Lexington & West Cambridge Railroad, 13 Met. 316, 326, Dewey, J., after deciding that evidence of an actual sale of adjacent land was competent, gaid: “ If it had been a price fixed by a jury, or in any way compulsorily paid by the party, the evidence of such payment would be inadmissible.” A price so fixed represents only the opinion of those who make it, and, as the grounds and reasons of their opinion are not known, and they cannot be presumed to have been qualified experts, and cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the parties whose rights the evidence will affect, their opinion is not competent evidence to show the value of other land. In White v. Fitchburg Railroad, 4 Cush. 440, it was held that evidence of the amount paid under an award of arbitrators for adjoining land taken from another owner by the same defendant was rightly excluded. See also Cobb v. Boston, 112 Mass. 181, 184; Providence & Worcester Railroad v. Worcester, 155 Mass. 35, 40. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.E. 528, 158 Mass. 278, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howe-v-howard-mass-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack