Title: Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Fowler
Citation: 401 S.W.2d 1
Docket Number: 5-3836
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: April 4, 1966

401 S.W.2d 1 (1966) ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. J. Houston FOWLER et ux., Appellees. No. 5-3836. Supreme Court of Arkansas. April 4, 1966. *2 Thomas B. Keys, Little Rock, for appellant. Cole &amp; Scott, Malvern, for appellees. JOHNSON, Justice. This condemnation action was brought by appellant Arkansas State Highway Commission to acquire 18.58 acres of land for highway purposes from appellees J. Houston Fowler and his wife. A complaint and declaration of taking was filed in Hot Springs Circuit Court on May 27, 1964, and $4,850 was deposited in the registry of the court as estimated just compensation. At trial on July 13, 1965, appellant's value witnesses testified that appellees' damages were from $3,000 to $3,250, whereas appellees' value witnesses placed the damage from $12,086 to $15,000. The jury returned a verdict for $12,000. From judgment on the verdict comes this appeal. Appellant's first point urged for reversal is that the trial court erred in refusing to strike the appellees' expert witness' testimony as to the value of the land because it was based upon a purchase by the State Highway Department. Mr. George McClure, appellees' expert witness, after establishing his expertise by impressive qualifications and experience, on direct examination went into a careful, detailed and lengthy explanation of how he arrived at the valuation of various parts of the property taken. On cross-examination after being cross-examined for thirteen pages of the transcript on how he had arrived at a value of $200 per acre for certain pasture land, this colloquy followed: Appellant immediately moved to strike McClure's value testimony on the pasture land as inadmissible. The trial court refused to strike the testimony but admonished the jury to disregard and forget the statement concerning amounts paid by the highway department for neighboring land. A recent decision is clearly applicable: Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Russell, 240 Ark. 19, 21, 23, 398 S.W.2d 201. The entire opinion is pertinent here but for brevity we quote only the following: Appellant's second point is a related one, that the trial court erred in permitting appellee Fowler to testify as to the value of his land before the taking and after the taking over the objection of appellant and then not striking the testimony because Fowler gave no basis for his evaluations and did not make a before and after appraisal. Appellee testified on direct examination that his land was worth $65,000 and that there was a difference after the taking of $15,000. On cross-examination appellee was asked: On appellant's objection to permitting appellee, admittedly not an expert witness, to testify as to the value of his land before the taking and after the taking, Arkansas cases support the rule on opinion evidence of a property owner expressed in 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 892: See Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Russell, supra; Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Muswick Cigar &amp; Beverage Co., 231 Ark. 265, 329 S.W.2d 173; Jonesboro, Lake City &amp; Eastern Railroad Company v. Ashabranner, 117 Ark. 317, 174 S.W. 548. Appellant's contention is without merit. Appellee purchased this property during the 1930's, lived on it, worked it, terraced it and otherwise improved it during the intervening years. As the owner he is clearly competent to express his opinion of the before and after value of his property. Having thus determined that there was no error in the admissibility of the testimony of appellees' value witnesses, we find no merit in appellant's third point which questions the substantiality of evidence to support the verdict. Affirmed.