Opinion ID: 1644822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Error is assigned in receiving evidence of sales of land outside this state.

Text: Mr. Harris, president of the development company and vice president of the Great Western railroad, testified on direct examination the railroad owned an industrial tract of 6,250 acres at Roseport, south of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, on which lead tracks and similer improvements were installed; that 945 acres were sold from this tract in late 1953 to an oil refinery as a site for a $30,000,000 plant, 275 acres were later sold to an ammonia products company as a site for a $17,000,000 plant, and another tract to Liquid Carbonic Co. as a site for a plant costing $1,500,000; the second of these sales was at four times as much per acre as the first and the third sale was at fourteen times as much as the first. Actual sale prices were not given. We are satisfied receipt of this evidence over defendant's objection was error. The Roseport tract was more than 18 times as large as the 342 acres under consideration here. Improvements had been installed upon it like those still in the planning stage for the property in Iowa. The Roseport land is near a population center some four times as large as Des Moines, over 200 miles distant, in another state. Lack of similarity of the two tracts seems apparent. Plaintiffs argue the above evidence was proper to demonstrate a common trend in this type of property, that after the first sales in an industrial development area the per acre value of the remaining land accelerates in almost geometrical progression. It occurs to us that evidence of the proportional increase of price in three sales in such a dissimilar tract as the one at Roseport has little, if any, bearing on the values now under consideration. Plaintiffs contend the trial court's statement in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, quoted in Division III, supra, indicate it did not consider the evidence regarding sales from the Roseport tract. It is not clear the court regarded this evidence as evidence of comparable sales which it did not take into consideration. In view of the likelihood of another trial we will say if this evidence was considered we think it was error to do so. Defendant's witness Rouze testified to the value of the Murphy tract before and after the taking. He expressed no opinion as to such values of the development company land. His direct examination fills nine pages of the record. His long cross-examination by Mrs. Murphy's counsel fills 67 pages. Over defendant's objection of incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial and not proper cross-examination, Rouze testified he agreed in a general way with a statement printed in a magazine called the Appraisal Journal as to the size of industrial districts in Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Atlanta, Dallas and Los Angeles, and that the purchase price of raw land in such districts can range anywhere from $600 to $10,000 an acre, depending on location and the amount of necessary grading. Rouze also testified on cross-examination over a like objection that he agreed in a general way with the trend expressed in this statement from a like publication dated November 12, 1958: Prime tracts of raw land in the nearby suburbs of New York are quoted as high as $12,000 an acre, up as much as 25 per cent over a year ago. In all areas, vacant land is in short supply and (in) the large cities of the northeast the outward movement of residential districts has created the shortage. This picture was drawn by brokers attending the convention of the National Association of Real Estate Boards here this week. The trial court has a large discretion in allowing cross-examination of expert witnesses as to values and we have no disposition to limit unduly the exercise of such discretion. However, we think the bounds of proper cross-examination were exceeded in receiving the above evidence. It is clear the trial court considered it. VII. Error is assigned in allowing plaintiffs' value witness Hall to testify to values of separate parts of the development company land. Reliance is upon the rule stated in Hoeft v. State, 221 Iowa 694, 697-698, 266 N.W. 571, 104 A.L.R. 1008, 1011-1012, and citations. It is a sufficient answer to this complaint that in its findings of fact and conclusions of law the court sustained defendant's objections to the testimony complained of and stated it was not considered. VIII. Error is claimed in receiving evidence of the value of crops growing on the land taken and in allowing plaintiffs to recover therefor, it is said, as separate items of damage. Although the value of growing crops on land taken may not be recovered as separate items of damage, such value may be shown as tending to disclose the real character of the property and to support the estimates of value given by the witnesses. Ranck v. City of Cedar Rapids, supra, 134 Iowa 563, 565-567, 111 N.W. 1027, and citations; Kukkuk v. City of Des Moines, supra, 193 Iowa 444, 456, 187 N.W. 209, and citations; Randell v. Iowa State Highway Comm., 214 Iowa 1, 10, 241 N.W. 685, and citations; 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 173; 18 Am. Jur., Eminent Domain, section 343. Under these authorities evidence of the value of growing crops was admissible but it should not be considered as in itself affording a basis or measure of recovery. But all of the cases caution against the use of these items and elements for anything more than permissible considerations on the question of value. Nedrow v. Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co., supra, 245 Iowa 763, 769, 61 N.W.2d 687, 691. The trial court found the fair and reasonable market value of Mrs. Murphy's land just before the taking, including crops which were lost, was $52,300, such value of the remaining property was $13,500, and she was entitled to the difference of $38,800. It is apparent the before-taking value was reached by computing it at $1,500 per acre for the land and the lost crops at $1,300, the amount the petition alleges and the evidence shows was the damage from their loss. The court found the fair and reasonable market value of the development company's tract just before the taking was $513,150 (also at $1,500 per acre), such value just after the taking was $139,070, and it was entitled to the difference of $374,080. The development company then filed a motion asking it be allowed the value of the growing crops on the 175.4 acres taken. The court then enlarged its previous findings by stating it overlooked the value of the growing crops amounting to $6,205.50 which this plaintiff was entitled to in addition to the difference previously found, making a total of $380,285.50. It seems clear the development company was erroneously allowed recovery for the value of growing crops as a separate element of damage contrary to the authorities cited in this division.,