Court Opinion

ID: 7815622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:35:10.579501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:35.493575
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., dissenting. The situation in this case is rather like that considered in Hoy v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 184 Kan. 70, 334 P. 2d 315. That was an eminent domain proceeding involving land that eontained extensive deposits of stone suitable for commercial use. The court observed, however, that the eastern third of the state was underlaid with rock, and in view of this fact the opinion stressed the point that the abstract value of the stone whs not to bo considered independently and without regard to its effect upon the market value of the land. In the language of the court:' “While the owner should be given by way of compensation for his land its fair market value for any use for which it has a commercial value in the immediate present or which may reasonably be anticipated in the near future, the uses which may be considered must be so reasonably probable as to have an effect on the present market value of the land. ’ ’ In the case at bar the greater part of the Morelands ’ proof was directed toward showing (a) that their land contains deposits of commercially usable bloating clay and (b) the extent of those deposits. This presents the basic factual situation of the Hoy case, that the land contains a mineral for which there is a market. The Morelands had the burden of carrying their proof one step farther, by showing to what extent the market value- of their land was enhanced by the presence of the clay. It is on this point that I think the weight of the evidence to be decidedly in favor of the appellant. On this issue the testimony offered by the landowners lacks persuasiveness. Their principal witnesses were geologists. These men were qualified to test the clay and determine its bloating characteristics, but they had no real knowledge of matters that would be considered by a prospective purchaser of the Moreland deposits, such as the cost of building a light-weight aggregate plant, fuel costs, transportation costs, the actual demand for lightweight aggregate in the Little Rock area, etc. Some of these witnesses valued the Moreland clay at more than a million dollars; but their estimates were naked figures, conjured up without supporting reasons, and might equally well have been either multiplied or divided by ten. The city met the issue squarely and introduced testimony that I find convincing. Among its witnesses were men with practical experience in the business of making lightweight aggregate material and in the construction of plants for that purpose. The witness Willson, for example, is an engineering officer for Texas Industries, Inc., which has plants in eight states and is the world’s largest producer of one type of lightweight aggregate. Willson was intimately familiar with the problems involved in constructing and operating such plants; he had actually designed and assisted in the construction of three of them. He and other equally well qualified witnesses, all wholly disinterested, had made a careful survey of the many factors affecting the market value of the appellees’ deposits of bloating clay. It was their informed opinion, supported by cogent reasons based upon practical knowledge and experience in the industry, that the existence of the clay did not substantially increase the market value of the Moreland lands. The testimony is too extensive to be detailed, but one point established by the city may be mentioned. According to the undisputed testimony of Willson and other witnesses there are two methods of producing lightweight aggregate. In one, bloating clay is subjected to extreme heat, which causes the clay to expand and become a light, porous material. In the other, pulverized coal is first mixed with a non-bloating plastic clay. The coal is then burned away, leaving a light, porous material. The final product of the two methods is exactly the same. Neither process has any particular advantage over the other; in fact,. Texas Industries, Inc., uses one process at some of its plants and the other process at other plants. Although the known deposits of bloating clay in Arkansas are few there is an abundance of plastic clay suitable for the production of lightweight aggregate. Indeed, this plastic clay is about as common as the stone in the Hoy case. I find no reason to doubt the conclusion of the city’s expert witnesses, that a company erecting a lightweight aggregate plant in the Little Rock area would not pay an inflated price for the Moreland bloating clay when unlimited quantities of the equally satisfactory plastic clay could be obtained for the price of the land valued for agricultural purposes. This is a chancery case, and in my opinion the award is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. I therefore dissent.