The Washington times., 1934-05-02

pellants offered testimony show
ing that the Commissioners, at
private sale, had paid for the
school site so cents per square
foot, and that the Government
had paid for the property for the
use of the Bureau of Standards
10 cents per square foot. Obtec-
tion was interposed on the part
of the Commissioners to the ad-
mission of this testimony. The
objection was sustained, and eX-
ception taken to the ruling OF
the court. The refusal OF the
court to admit this testimony
presents the single question Tor
consideration on this appeal.
It will be observed that there
is a wide variation between the
valuation fixed by the witnesses
for the District, and that fixed
by the witnesses for the defend
ants. The admiSSibility OF evil
dence as to the price paid for
similar lands adjoining, or in the
immediate vicinity of those to be
condemned has been the subject
Of some difference Of opinion on
the part of the courts in the
various States; but an analysis OF
the strict rule applied by these
courts, either in admitting or ex-
cluding such evidence, discloseS
a line of reasoning that seems to
establish q somewhat uniform
rule. For example, the general
rule announced by Lewis in his
work on Eminent Domain, I'd. Ed.
Sec. 447, and which is cited with
approval in many Of the cases to
which we have been referred in
the able briefs furnished in this
case, the writer seems to have
had In mind the real distinction
as to when such evidence is ad-
missible and as to when it should
be excluded. The general rule Is
stated as follows: What the
party condemning has paid for
other property is incompetent.
Such sales are not a fair cr1'
terion of value, for the reason
that they are in the nature Of
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 ap-
pointed by law.
In most cases the same party
must have the particular prop
erty, even If it costs more than
it's true value. The fear Of one
party or the other to take the
risk Of legal proceedings ordi-
narily results in the one party
paying more or the other taking
less than is considered to be the
fair market value of the, property.
For these reasons such sales
would not seem to be competent
evidence Of value in any case,
either in a proceeding by the
same condemning party or other
wise.
Considering reasons for the
rule, as stated by the autnor, it
is clear that there may be excep-
tional cases where a general rule
Of this sort would be- inapplicable.
The petition is expressly recog-
nized by the same author in his
third edition, section 662. as
follows:
"The prOperiety Of allowing
proof Of the sales Of similar
property to that in question,
made at or about the time Of
the taking, is generally ap-
proved by the authorities. But
such evidence is held to be in
competent in several of the
States. In regard to the de-
gree of similarity which must
exist, between the property con-
cerning which such proof Is Of.
fered and the property taken,
and the nearneSs in respect Of
time and distance, no general
rules can be laid down. These
are matters with which the trial
judge is usually cOnverSant, and
they must rest largely in his
discretion"
The author then proceeds to
discuss leading cases from differ
ent States illustrative of the law
upon the subject.
The proper rule and exception
is clearly stated by Chief Justice
Holmes in O'Malley VS.. Common
wealth, 1872 Mass. 1876, 1913, where
the State was changing the grade
and altering the street, and the
question involved damages to i'm
proved property. Evidence was
given of sale of vacant land to
the Metropolitan Water Board.