Court Opinion

ID: 9638268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:39:13.963562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:05.172002
License: Public Domain

RIDDICK, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I think the majority opinion correctly states, but, under the facts in this case, incorrectly applies the rule concerning the discretion of the trial judge in the reception or rejection of evidence of value.
It is true that the witnesses whose evidence was rejected were not informed as. to the value of land for agricultural purposes in the vicinity in which this land was located. However, they were not offered' to testify to that value, but to a special value of the land for suburban residence- and recreation. This value was recently acquired, due to the construction of modern highways and bridges, which made the land, readily accessible from the City of St. Louis. Past sales of the land for other-purposes had little bearing on the question-of a value only lately created; the character of the soil, the presence or absence of farm fences, dilapidated buildings and’ abandoned orchards, even less. The controlling factors were the distance of the-land from St. Louis, the means available-for easy transportation to and from St.. Louis, and the demand existing in St. Louis-for lands similarly situated and of comparative suitability for suburban homes and: estates. In these matters these witnesses; had long experience and the requisite: knowledge. I would reverse.