Opinion ID: 2607963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alfalfa Lands

Text: There were very few sales of alfalfa lands as such because usually when alfalfa lands are sold they are not sold separately but are sold with the rest of the ranch, but in 1965 there were 4.67 acres of similar alfalfa lands sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer for $350 per acre, which lands were located three miles northwest of the lands in question. According to Mr. Hamblin, this was a very fair price and he thought any rancher or farmer would be glad to pay that amount for alfalfa lands. He further stated that if he were to try to sell the lands right now,    the salability would be hampered due to the fact that it was infested with a poisonous deal and even though it didn't hurt the land, the buyer thinks that it might hurt the land.    The salability is decreased farther than the actual value. In his opinion the value of alfalfa lands was $175 per acre after the damage occurred in 1965. There was no objection to Mr. Hamblin's qualifications, and no objection was made to his testimony concerning the values of the alfalfa lands. Upon cross-examination Mr. Hamblin testified that he knew of only one separate sale of alfalfa lands in the area, that being the 4.67 acre tract which was sold to the city of Evanston for the purpose of extending its airport runway. He testified that he had not based his opinion as to the value of alfalfa lands solely on the sale to the city of Evanston. He stated that a bulletin from the University of Wyoming indicated that alfalfa lands were worth $350 per acre, and that the said bulletin gave him more knowledge as to land values. The defendants then moved that    Mr. Hamblin's estimate and his opinion as to the value of the alfalfa in this particular area be stricken for the reason that the basis upon which he testified would certainly not be representative; that this land is now being used for airport purposes; there are other factors that must be taken into consideration, condemnation, the question of willingness of buyers and sellers and certainly this is not a normal sale and I would think that it would not apply in this situation   . The objection raised by the defendants' motion went to the testimony of the witness as to the one sale to the city of Evanston. The witness had not based his opinion solely on the sale to the city of Evanston, but used this sale as one factor in arriving at his opinion. There was no evidence that the city acquired the lands under condemnation or even threat of condemnation. The witness testified that the sale was by a willing buyer and a willing seller, and there was no evidence to the contrary. The only authorities cited by the defendants in support of their contention that prejudicial error was committed by the trial court in admitting the testimony of the witness are cases dealing with condemnation or threat of litigation. There was no evidence of condemnation or threat of condemnation or litigation, and the cases are not in point. We are cited to no authority, nor is any convincing argument made that the trial court's actions constituted prejudicial error, and we do not believe that any occurred.