Title: City of Portland v. THERROW

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed March 21, 1962.
*276 Oliver I. Norville, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Malcolm J. Montague, Portland.
Alton John Bassett, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, PERRY, GOODWIN and LUSK, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PERRY, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to acquire by eminent domain all of the real property of the defendants located on S.W. First Avenue between Grant and Sherman Streets in the city of Portland. This property is being taken as a part of the city's program on *277 Urban Renewal, and consists of a concrete building and the land upon which it is situated. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment fixing the compensation to be paid to defendants.
Plaintiff's first assignment of error is that the court erred in not sustaining its motion to strike certain testimony for the defendants on the basis that the method of valuation used by the expert witness for the defendants was improper. In this connection the record is as follows:
It will be noted that the objection of the plaintiff relates to the use by the witness of a reproduction cost method in placing a value upon the building. However, the witness stated that he did not arrive at his computation by using a reproduction cost method. We believe the only fair interpretation of this witness's testimony as set out is that he, being a real estate dealer, believed he had a general knowledge of the subject and a general knowledge of the value of business property and, without using any of the generally applied methods but relying upon his judgment, he could arrive at the fair cash value of the concrete building.
1, 2. The fact that the witness, because of his experience, *280 relied upon his intuition for his judgment as to value could only go either to his qualifications to express an opinion or to the weight to be given to his testimony by the jury. No motion of any kind was made in the trial court which would raise the question of his qualification. Such an assignment of error will not be considered for the first time in this court. Douglas County v. Meyers et al., 201 Or 59, 268 P2d 625.
Plaintiff's second assignment of error is based upon the following:
3, 4. Evidence of voluntary sales of similar property in the vicinity of the property sought to be taken is always admissible as independent evidence of the value of the property in question. Coos Bay Logging Co. v. Barclay, 159 Or 272, 79 P2d 672; State Highway Commission v. Parker, 225 Or 143, 357 P2d 548. It would also then, for the purpose of testing the value or weight to be given to the opinion of an expert witness on value of real property, be proper to inquire as to his knowledge of voluntary sales of comparable property in the vicinity of the property about which he has expressed an opinion.
5. The question as asked of the witness, however, was improper. It goes beyond asking if he is familiar with a certain sale; it informs the jury of a purported sale at a particular price without any foundation in the evidence that the property is at all similar for comparative purposes.
We are well satisfied that the question asked was prompted by no improper motives; nevertheless there is a vice in such questions that tends to leave an impression with the jury that a fact or state of affairs, which has not and perhaps cannot be proven, does in truth exist. Such questions are erroneous and should not be asked by counsel.
6. While the record above would indicate that the trial court did not sustain the objection upon the grounds we have set out, nevertheless its ruling was correct and no error could be predicated thereon.
7. In any event, had the question been proper, the plaintiff was not prejudiced for the witness stated he *282 had not informed himself of recent sales in the vicinity of the defendants' property.
The plaintiff also assigns as error denial of its motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence of value is insufficient to justify the verdict.
8. This court will not, except in specific instances not here present, review as an appealable matter the denial of a motion for a new trial. ORS 19.010; Macartney v. Shipherd, 60 Or 133, 117 P 814; White v. Geinger, 70 Or 81, 139 P 572.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.