Court Opinion

ID: 9447404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:34:17.857077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:01.717464
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Circuit Judge.
I concur.
As to the comparable sales instruction, however, the basis for my judgment differs from that of my associates. In my view, the court properly refused this instruction for the reason that there was no evidence of sales which would warrant the giving of the instruction.
Testimony with respect to comparable sales was given, as foundation for their opinions, by the expert witnesses called by the government. They testified that *607they had cheeked into sales of other lands and had taken such sales into consideration in . arriving at their appraisals of the condemned property. Data relating to such sales were not given to the jury. There was no proper direct proof of any one sale.1
The evidence thus was not such as would allow the jury to determine for itself the fact and nature of any sale. Its only effect was to add weight to the opinions expressed by the government witnesses: a matter for argument and not for instruction.

. One witness testified that he had talked to a subdivide!-; that be had found out the price the subdivider had paid; that it was $198.44 per acre. Although such information is sufficient basis for opinion, it is not competent evidence of the sale itself. United States v. 5139.5 Acres of Land, etc., 4 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 659, 662. Cf., National Bank of Commerce v. City of New Bedford, 1900, 175 Mass. 257, 56 N.E. 288, 290. See 2 Wigmore, §§ 562, 655 (3rd Edition, 1940).