The record-union., 1891-02-21

!
it, takiI ,g into consids ration the char;lc-
ter of salch deposits. The fact that the
plaintiff wants the land for q particular
purpose SHOULD not defeat the defendant
in his O. forts to show It's market value by
showing as an element it's value for that
particuL II purpose; and the fact that the
! plaintiff is the only person who has thus
| far offerl VI to purchase is immaterial. The
| true dist dnction is that the demand of
the plain tiff alone is not to be considered
exclusive of other considerations. 1t
goes to lale up the aggregate of de-
mands, probable demands, which is
one of the elements of the inquiry. There
is nothing in what we have said lncoD-
sistent wit n what was decided in Giimer
VS.. Lime Point, 10 Cal. IL, or c. p. X. r..
Co. VS.. PEI Tson, 80 I'd. 247. In the former
case the de f6Edant offered TO show what
the land W; lsi worth to the Government
as a site fol fortihcation. As the Gov
ernment W. Ri the only possible purchaser
for such a I purpose, it was apparent that
the attempt so show what it was worth
for tortitio alton was an attempt to prove
what was its peculiar value to the Gov
ernment. Il G. p. r. r. Co. VS.. Pearson,
the defendan t attempted to show what
the land woI I'D be worth 10 the owner,
provided the State should thereafter grant
him a whal i franchise; and the court
simply held hat such a fact was too re-
mote and spe culatiye.
An attempt is made to distinguish q
case where the, owner of the land sought
to be condemn ed occupies q commanding
position from one where the land is re-
mote from the dam site. This contention
was disposed adversely to the appel
lants in the de cision on the former APP
peal. Land hich is remote from the
dam site may II ave a less value than land
at the dam site, out the rule governing the
| adinissibility OF evidence must neces-
sarily be the s anne in each case. The
ket value? and i 5 determined by the same
rules. It viii ot do to say that land
sought to be COZ tdenned tor q reservoir
purpose has no Y alJse for such purpose be-
cause it is too rem tote from the dam site.
The very fact tha7 this land is sought to
be condemned fC r SUch 2 purpose is an
admission Of its a, 3aptability therefor.
But at the last trial the evidence was
not confined to the question of the adapt
ability and value of the property as a
reservoir site, con ssidered as an element
in the determine ton of its actual or
market value. w illnesses were allowed
to give estimates sof value based upon
speculative ilnprtj yements, increase of
population, eXteiisi on of water systems,
and profits which would result from the
distribution and sa lie Of the water, thus
permitting the defer ldants to show practi-
caily what plaintiff I, or another in its
situation, could affol q to pay for the land,
rather than go witht ,ut it. II was admit
ted at the trial that * it was not practicable
to have constructed Il reservoir upon the
$50. IS acres OF land i'll controversy in this
action except in cozlI Section with the ad-
joining land of the pl sinti1f below it, and
lying between the dc fendant's land and
the dam site" The plaintiff had con-
structed dam by V. hich water was inn
pounded, covering all the land below de-
fendant's land and, in fact, at the time OF
the trial, a portion OF he lands in contro-
! \
testified on behalf of defendants that il
would cost $3.50, ,000 to. construct dam,
system of mains and distributing pipes
in order to utilize the reservoir to its Ut
most capacity over the erritory tributary
to 1t, and that, eStim. 2lng the market
value of water to be $40 } per acre for irri-
cation, and ten cents Z er thousand gal
Ions for domestic purpC' Ses, the value OF
the land i'll controversy vas ssh per acre
on January l3, 1887. III g stated that in
arriving at that conclu; don he estimated
the cost of construction { ii q suitable dam
and mains through the lands to be irri-
gated assumed that Nat lonal City had a
4 population of 1900, and t hat its increase
in the next ten years would amount to
6,3G0; that the quantity CG water would
irrigate 1900 acres of land that it would
take ten years to compile lie the system
and dispose of the enti re volume OF
water at the rate Of 2,tU0 acres per
year. allowed $4,000 for running ex-
penses, taxes, etc, and q sinking
: fund of $1,000 to renew the system
the reservoir for th e sale Of
water rights and watt .r rates re-
ceived from National City; charged the
reservoir interest at th e rate OF
ten per cent, and carried the same
system of debts and credits
through a term of ten ears, show
ing a balance at the end of the tenth year
OF 81 ,623, ,064 after ali the indel 1tedneSs had
been paid. This balance he Considered as
the amount that would be du G to the land
at the end of ten years. So The present
worth of that amount, diScoI Inted at ten
per cent, or if that amount ha d been paid
at the beginning or that ten v, ears instead
of at the end, it should have btien $624, DE,
which, divided between 742 acI les of land. .
amounts to SS41 an acre.
The testimony was objected TO, the OBJ
lection was overruled and = iaintiff e-1-
cepted. After it was admitted the piaint-
iH moved the court to strike it out on
the ground that it was based upon
considerations and conting sncies so
remote, uncertain and spect uative as
to be wholly inadmissible and in
competent as a basis for Fl king the
market value of the land in ql Iestion on
the 18th day of June, 1887, or at any other
time. The court denied the M otion and
plaintiff excepted.
Another witness, Ryan, estil mated the
conclusion upon similar calcul&s tionS and
contingencies, and upon the ass umption
that il was to be used in connect on with
plaintiffs reservoir.
1t is contended by appellants that the
testimony of these witnesses. aud other
testimony of q similar nature, was adj
fnlssibIe because there were no similar
properties in the market, by comparison
with which the market value of the prop
erty IN controversy could be arrived at;
that the method pursued was sim oily fix
Ing the actual value by calculation
considering the necessary eXpend iture in
putting it in condition for certa in pur-
poses, and the probable income ant profit
which would result from it's use Many
cases are cited in support of tlli S con-
tentlon, among them the Boom Co npany
VS.. Patterson, 9S u. S. 403; L.. r. and +. S.
X. Il. VS.. McGhee, Al Ark. 202 anti! L. r.
j. Il. r. VS.. Woodruff, 5 S. w. Re p. 792.
But none of the cases cited go 10 the
extent claimed for them. In Boom, Com
pany VS.. Patterson the court said tl,at as
Il general rule compensation to the owner
is to be estimated by reference to tl . uses
Tor which the lands are suitable h aying
regard to the existing business or wants
OF the community, or such as may be
reasonably expected in the irnne iiate
future, and that the adaptability @ the
land for certain purpose is q prope ele-
ment for consideration in estiInatin q the
| value OF the lands when appropriate Il for
public use. There is nothing in ther re-
port of that case TO show that thu, de-
fendant was permitted to prove the cost
OF constructing the boom and the Or ofits
which would result TO the company rom
the use thereof. In l.. r. j. r. r. Co. VS..
| w oodruff, s1t11ro, the Court said: ssIf the
market value is the price for which the
property could be sold on the market. we
VIII next be led to inquire, How is the