Case Name: Sally Walker vs. The City of Boston
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1851-10
Citations: 8 Cush. 279
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sally Walker vs. The City of Boston.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
Sally Walker vs. The City of Boston.
On a complaint to recover damages for land taken by the city of Boston, under the act of 1846, c. 167, for supplying the city with pure water, the owners of lands adjoining that taken, and who know its nature and character, may testify to their opinion of its value.
This was a petition, under the act of 1846, c. 167, for supplying the city of Boston with pure water, to recover compensation for damages sustained by the petitioner, in consequence of the taking of her land by the respondents for the purposes mentioned in the act. The estate taken consisted of a piece of land, and also of a mill privilege and land adjoining. The trial was before Merrick, J., in the court of common pleas.
At the trial, which resulted in a verdict for the petitioner, under rulings to which the respondents excepted, several questions were made, the only one of which insisted upon in this court was as follows: Three witnesses were severally called by the petitioner to testify to the value of the lands taken; and having stated that they were farmers, that they were the owners of lands adjoining the lands taken by the respondents, and were acquainted with the nature and character of the lands so taken, and that they had heard or known of sales of land in the neighborhood, were then inquired of what in their opinion was the value of the land taken. This question was objected to by the respondents, but admitted by the judge, and answered by the witnesses.
P. W. Chandler, city solicitor, for the respondents.
J. G. Abbott and G. A. Somerby, for the petitioner.

Opinion:
Dewey, J.
The only question, raised in this case, on the argument, was that of the competency of the evidence admitted of opinions of the witnesses, as to the value of the land taken for the use of the respondents.
Under our practice it is competent to show the value of property, by the testimony of witnesses personally acquainted with the same, and such witnesses may state their opinion of its value. It is somewhat of a departure from the rule confining witnesses to the statement of facts, but seems to be necessary and justifiable in relation to the value of property, when damages for the taking of such property is the matter in controversy. Vandine v. Burpee, 13 Met. 291; Wyman v. Lexington & West Cambridge Railroad, 13 Met. 326.
Exceptions overruled.