Soisson v. Connellsville School District

Citations

• 262 Pa. 80
• 104 A. 892
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 592

Syllabus

<p>Eminent domain — Condemnation—School purposes — Evidence —Marhet value — Competency of witness — Evidence of purchase-price — Remoteness—Value if subdivided — Charge.</p> <p>1. On the trial of an appeal from an award of viewers in proceedings for tbe condemnation of land for school purposes the testimony of a properly qualified witness that at the date of the taking the market value of the property in question was a certain sum, should not have been stricken out merely because he stated elsewhere in his testimony, when asked what would have been offered for the lot, that he could hardly answer that question but that if he had wanted it himself for a residence he would have been willing to pay the amount he had named, although he'knew of no one who had offered that sum.</p> <p>2. A witness who had lived in the borough in which the land was situated for fifteen years and who owned a store property forty feet from the condemned land for six years prior to the condemnation thereof, and who thereafter bought a property on the street on which the condemned land was located, and before the condemnation had made inquiries of two property owners in the immediate vicinity as to the value of their properties, with a view of purchasing a property for himself, was qualified to testify as to the value of the condemned land.</p> <p>3. The court properly refused to permit the defendant tO' ghow the price plaintiffs had paid for the land in question more than four years before the condemnation thereof.</p> <p>4. In such case the trial judge did not err in affirming plaintiffs’ point “that if the jury believe that the land is available for subdivision and that the market value thereof would be increased by subdividing it into smaller building lots, then they have the right to consider such availability as an element of value in making up their verdict.”</p>