« PředchozíPokračovat »
Arkansas.-Texas & St. L. R. Co. v. In eminent domain proceedings. Eddy (1884) 42 Ark. 427; Springfield The rule has been often applied in & M. R. Co. v. Rhea (1884) 44 Ark. eminent domain proceedings. 258; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Arkansas.-Texas & St. L. R. Co. v. Magness (1909) 93 Ark. 46, 123 S. W. Eddy (1884) 42 Ark. 527; Springfield 786.
& M. R. Co. v. Rhea (1884) 44 Ark. 258. California.McNulty V. Lawley California.-McNulty Lawley (1919)
Cal. App. 184 Pac. 50; (1919) Cal. App. 184 Pac. 50; Yolo Water & Power Co. v. Edmands Yolo Water & Power Co. v. Edmands (1920) Cal. App.
195 Pac. 463. (1920) Cal. App. 195 Pac. 463. Colorado.-Ft. Collins Development Iowa.-Dudley v. Minnesota & N. R. Co. v. France (1907) 41 Colo. 512, W. R. Co. (1889) 77 Iowa, 408, 42 N. W. 92 Pac. 953; Carper v. Risdon (1904)
359. 19 Colo. App. 530, 76 Pac. 744.
Maryland. - Baltimore v. Carroll Illinois.-American Steel & Copper (1916) 128 Md. 68, 96 Atl. 1076; BaltiPlate Co. v. Bilter (1916) 200 Ill. App. more v. Himmel (1919) 135 Md. 65, 175.
107 Atl. 522 (as stating the rule). Indiana.—Swaim v. Swaim (1893)
Massachusetts.-Brackett v. Com. 134 Ind. 596, 33 N. E. 792.
(1916) 223 Mass. 119, 111 N. E. 1036, Iowa.-Dudley V. Minnesota & N. Ann. Cas. 1918B, 863 (corporation). W. R. Co. (1889) 77 Iowa, 408, 42 N. See also Brown v. Providence, W. & B. W. 359.
R. Co. (1855) 5 Gray, 35. Kentucky-Scott v. O'Neil (1901) New Hampshire.-Concord Land & 23 Ky. L. Rep. 331, 62 S. W. 1042. Water Power Co. v. Clough (1899) 69
Maryland.-Baltimore V. Carroll N. H. 609, 45 Atl. 565. (1916) 128 Md. 68, 96 Atl. 1076.
North Carolina.--Suffolk & C. R. Co. Massachusetts.-Flint
Flint v. West End Land & Improv. Co. (1863) 6 Allen, 34, 83 Am. Dec. 615; (1904) 137 N. C. 330, 68 L. R. A. 333, Kenerson v. Henry (1869) 101 Mass. 107 Am. St. Rep. 490, 49 S. E. 350. 152; Anthony v. New York, P. & B. But in the eminent domain case of R. Co. (1894) 162 Mass. 60, 37 N. E. Central P. R. Co. v. Feldman (1907) 780; Brackett v. Com. (1916) 223 152 Cal. 303, 92 Pac. 849, it was held Mass. 119, 111 N. E. 1036, Ann. Cas. that "while the assessed value of 1918B, 863. See also Brown v. Provi. property is not admissible as original dence, W. & B. R. Co. (1855) 5 Gray, evidence of its market value, a witness 35.
who has testified as an expert may New Hampshire.-Concord Land & properly, on cross-examination, be Water Power Co. v. Clough (1899) 69 asked what is his knowledge regarding N. H. 609, 45 Atl. 565.
such assessment, for the purpose of North Carolina.-Ridley Sea testing the value of his opinion." board & R. R. Co. (1899) 124 N. C. 37, The rule excluding assessment 32 S. E. 379; Suffolk & C. R. Co. v. values in eminent domain has been West End Land & Improv. Co. (1904) applied in favor of a city taking land 137 N. C. 330, 68 L.R.A. 333, 107 Am.
in eminent domain. Thus, the countySt. Rep. 490, 49 S. E. 350.
assessed valuation of lands is not Pennsylvania.—Hanover Water Co.
evidence of value against a city taking v. Ashland Iron Co. (1877) 84 Pa. 279,
the land in eminent domain. Re North10 Mor. Min. Rep. 204; Hennershotz
lake Ave. (1917) 96 Wash. 344, 165 v. Gallagher (1889) 124 Pa. 1, 16 Atl, 518; Com. v. Tryon (1906) 31 Pa.
Pac. 113. See also Re Seward Park Super. Ct. 146.
Ave. (1917) 96 Wash. 698, 165 Pac. Rhode Island. Spink v. New York,
971. N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (1904) 26 R. I.
Where a city takes land in eminent 115, 58 Atl. 499.
domain the assessed valuation is not Washington.—The reported
evidence against the city, particularly (American State Bank Butts, where the assessment is by a "state ante, 168).
agency." Girard Trust Co. v. Phil
adelphia (1915) 248 Pa. 179, 93 Atl. irrelevant. It was but hearsay; the 947.
opinion of the assessor or the taxIn various other cases.
payer, given out of court and with It will be seen that it is held in the no opportunity for cross-examination." reported case (AMERICAN STATE BANK
Scott v. O'Neil (1901) 23 Ky. L. Rep. v. BUTTS, ante, 168) that the assessed
331, 62 S. W. 1042. value of real property is not evidence
The assessed valuation of real of value in an action in regard to
estate is no evidence of value in a land claimed to be a homestead.
criminal case. Com. v. Tryon (1906) The assessed value of land is not
31 Pa. Super. Ct. 146. admissible in an action for damages
The assessed valuation is not adthereto. No inference of correctness
missible to property having a can be drawn from a failure to object
market value, in an action in aid of an that the valuation is too low. Ridley
execution on the ground that the real v. Seaboard & R. R. Co. (1899) 124 N.
estate was conveyed away for less C. 37, 32 S. E. 379.
than its value. American Steel & The rule excluding assessment
Copper Plate Co v. Bilter (1916) values as evidence of value has been
200 Ill. App. 175. applied in an action for damages by
b. Qualified rule. fire to growing wood (Spink v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (1904) 26 R. I.
Some of the cases state the rule as 115, 58 Atl. 499), for flowing lands (St. applicable to cases in which the owner Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Magness does not participate in fixing the (1909) 93 Ark. 46, 123 S. W. 786), and
assessed value. for diversion of a stream (Hanover
Alabama.—Birmingham Mineral R. Water Co. v. Ashland Iron Co. (1877) Co. v. Smith (1889) 89 Ala. 305, 7 So. 84 Pa. 279, 10 Mor. Min. Rep. 204). It 634 (obiter); Savannah, A. & M. R. Co. has been also applied in relation to v. Buford (1894) 106 Ala. 303, 17 So. the value of property alleged to have
395; Nashville C. & St. L. R. Co. v. been converted (Carper v. Risdon Garth (1908) 155 Ala, 316, 46 So. 583; (1904) 19 Colo. App. 530, 76 Pac. 744),
Pratt Consol. Coal Co. Morton to the value of property mortgaged
(1915) 14 Ala. App. 194, 68 So. 1015. (Storrs v. Robinson (1902) 74 Conn.
California.–San José & A. R. Co. v. 443, 51 Atl. 135, and also in an action Mayne (1890) 83 Cal. 566, 23 Pac. 522. to quiet title (Swaim v. Swaim (1893)
(obiter). 134 Ind. 596, 33 N. E. 792). The rule
Colorado.—Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. was also applied in a tenant's suit for Heckman (1909) 45 Colo. 470, 101 Pac. loss by fire of buildings which the
976. lease required him to keep insured.
Illinois.-Lewis v. Englewood Elev. Anthony v. New York, P. & B. R. Co. R. Co. (1906) 223 Ill. 223, 79 N. E. (1894) 162 Mass. 60, 37 N. E. 780. 44; Mercer County v. Wolff (1908) 237 In an action for damages to land by
Ill. 74, 86 N. E. 708; Kelley v. People's a railroad, for interference of ingress
Nat. F. Ins. Co. (1914) 262 Ill. 158, 50 and egress, and for smoke, cinders, L.R.A. (N.S.) 1164, 104 N. E. 188. sparks, etc., it was held that "there Indiana.—Chicago & E. R. Co. v. was no error in refusing to allow the Smith (1892) 6 Ind. App. 262, 33 N. E. introduction of the assessment roll 241; Calahan v. Dunker (1912) 51 Ind. showing the valuation of the property App. 436, 99 N. E. 1021. for assessment purposes, made by the Louisiana.-Louisiana R. & Nav. county assessor.” Ft. Collins De Co. v. Morere (1906) 116 La. 998, 41 velopment R. Co. v. France (1907) So. 236. 41 Colo. 512, 92 Pac. 953.
North Carolina.-Hamilton v. SeaIn an action to set aside a judicial board Air Line R. Co. (1909) 150 N. C. sale for inadequacy of price, the 193, 63 S. E. 730. court said: “The evidence of what Oregon. - Oldenburg v. Oregon the property had been valued at in Sugar Co. (1901) 39 Or. 564, 65 Pac. assess.ment for taxation was wholly 869.
Thus, it has been held that the (1844) 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 603; Swift v. assessed valuation of lands, not par M'Tiernan (1848) 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 602. ticipated in by the owner, is not In Fox V. Baltimore & O. R. Co. evidence of value, in an action for (1890) 34 W. Va. 466, 12 S. E. 757, damages for overflow (Savannah, A. & the court said that “in the case of M. R. Co. v. Buford (1894) 106 Ala. Mason v. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co. 303, 17 So. 395; Oldenburg v. Oregon (1882) 20 W. Va. 223, the court adSugar Co. (1901) 39 Or. 564, 65 Pac. mitted evidence of the assessed value 869); in an action for nuisance in for purposes of taxation, ... and this dumping refuse and discharging con court said it was not error." taminated water (Pratt Consol. Coal In an action against stockholders of Co. v. Morton (1915) 14 Ala. App. 194, a dissolved corporation, where it was 68 So. 1015); in an action for damages held that the defendants were indebtto lands by fire (Chicago & E. R. Co. v. ed to the corporation on their stock Smith (1892) 6 Ind. App. 262, 33 N. E. subscriptions, the court said: "The 241; Hamilton v. Seaboard Air Lin3 objection to the assessment lists is R. Co. (1909) 150 N. C. 193, 63 S. E. based on the ground that they were 730); in an action against a railroad not sworn to. These were the official company for running against a colt lists on which the defendants paid (Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Garth their taxes, and whilst not conclusive, (1908) 155 Ala. 316, 46 So. 583); in an and not even entitled to as much action against a railroad for injuring weight as they would have been if a ditch (Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. sworn to by the defendants themHeckman (1909) 45 Colo. 470, 101 Pac. selves, were still lists to which they 976); in an action to declare a deed as taxpayers had given their assent, a mortgage (Calahan v. Dunker (1912) either actual or implied, and were 51 Ind. App. 436, 99 N. E. 1021); in legitimate evidence to be thrown into eminent. domain proceedings (San the scales with the rest." Steam Stone José & A. R. Co. v. Mayne (1890) 83 Cutter Co. v. Scott (1900) 157 Mo. Cal. 566, 23 Pac. 522 (obiter).
520, 57 S. W. 1076, supra.
1 An assessor's valuation of house A poor-law valuation was admitted hold goods, not participated in by the as some evidence of value in Welland owner, is not admissible as to value v. Middleton (1844) 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. of the goods, in an action upon a 603, supra. (It is pointed out in Com. policy of fire insurance thereon. Kel v. Heffron (1869) 102 Mass. 148, that ley v. People's Nat. F. Ins. Co. (1914) “the statute under which that assess262 Ill. 158, 50 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1164, 104 ment was made and recorded not only N. E. 188.
required the entry in a book of a "So long as assessments are not declaration signed by the commissionmade at the market value of property ers, stating that and other particulars, in this state, the offering of them, for but expressly provided that the said the purpose of showing value in book shall, after the signature of the expropriation cases, will be a useless said declaration, be evidence of the encumbering of the record," unless truth of every particular so entered accompanied by proof that the ap therein.' Stat. 1 & 2 Vict. chap. 56, praisement was made by the owner SS 64, 65.”) The Welland Case was himself. Louisiana R. & Nav. Co. v. followed in Swift McTiernan Morere (1906) 116 La. 998, 41 So. 236. (1848) 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 602, supra.
Where in a condemnation proceedC. Cases admitting the evidence.
ing the lowest estimate by a witness There are a few cases in which the was $9,400, and the commissioners assessed valuation of property has
fixed the compensation as $7,750, and been held admissible as evidence of it appeared from the order appealed value. Steam Stone Cutter Co. v. Scott from that the property was assessed (1900) 157 Mo. 520, 57 S. W. 1076;
at 1,200, the court said in affirming Ripton v. Brandon (1907) 80 Vt. 234, the order: “This is some evidence of 67 Atl. 541; Welland v. Middleton value appearing in the record, which
the commissioners are presumed to Thus, the assessed valuation of perhave considered, and we are not dis sonal property based on the owner's posed to hold that $7,750 is an inade sworn valuation was held admissible quate compensation for property as as an admission; not, however, consessed at $1,200 by public officers clusive. Daniels v. Fowler (1898) 123 personally acquainted therewith.” The N. C. 35, 31 S. E. 598. court had also said that the com In Gayle v. Court of County Comrs. missioners "are unhampered by tech (1908) 155 Ala. 204, 46 So. 261, where nical rules of evidence and unrestrict- the defendant, in proceedings for ed as to their sources of information.” taking a road, testified on cross-exRe Simmons (1909) 132 App. Div. 574, amination at what value he had given 116 N. Y. Supp. 952.
in all his lands for assessment, it was It was held in Orleans Levee Dist. held the tax assessment book was not Comrs. V. Jackson (1904) 113 La. subject to the objection that it was 124, 36 So. 912, that a party who has irrelevant and immaterial, for years paid taxes to the state on So, the record of the assessed valproperty which is sought to be ex uation of the capital stock of a corpopropriated by the state itself, for ration, founded on and following the purposes strictly public, is not in statutory sworn statement made by the position to argue that the assessment proper corporation officer is admissimade of that property for many years ble as evidence of the value of the back should not enter at all as a factor stock. Ohlwine v. Pfaffman (1913) in the consideration of the question of 52 Ind. App. 357, 100 N. E. 777; Kluge value.
v. Ries (1917) 66 Ind. App. 610, 117 In an action for damages for de N. E. 262. stroying a vessel, it was held proper to admit evidence of the assessment
d. Evidence rejected as too remote in
time, value of the vessel, on the assurance of the appellee that he would follow Thus, assessment values of 1913 and it up by showing that the appellant 1914 were held too remote in estimathad appeared before the commission- ing damages caused in 1911. Balers and asked for a reduction of the timore & O. R. Co. v. Kahl (1914) 124 assessment, stating that the amount Md. 299, 92 Atl. 770 (not necessary to of the assessment was more than the decision). cost of the boat, or more than it was In Miller v. Windsor Water Co. worth, and also stated the amount he (1892) 148 Pa. 429, 23 Atl. 1132, the paid for the boat, and thereupon the court said: “The first specification assessment was reduced to the amount charges error in excluding defendant's as it now stands. This amounted to offer to show the assessment of plaina declaration as to the value of the tiff's property for taxation in 1882 as boat. Gossage v. Philadelphia, B. & some evidence of its market value in W. R. Co. (1905) 101 Md. 698, 61 Atl. 1890, when it was appropriated by 692.
defendant. The bare statement of the In repelling a charge of fraud rest proposition is strongly persuasive, if ing, among other circumstances, on not conclusive, of its want of merit. the allegation that the pretended price At best, such assessments or valupaid exceeded very much the value of ations are a very unreliable measure the land, it was held that the defend of market value at the time they are ants ought to have been allowed to made. As a general rule, they differ prove that it was assessed at the price so widely from actual market values paid. Cardwell v. Mebane (1873) 68 that no one ever thinks of accepting N. C. 485, where the court said that them as a measure by which to sell or the assessed value was not proof of buy. While in a few counties they value.
are merely up to the legal standard, in It has been held that the assessed a large majority they are less than valuation based on the owner's sworn one half, and in others less than one statement is evidence of value.
third. Our attention was recently
called to a modified form of assessor's much of the toll road of a company oath, in which that official, in ease of as was within the city, it was held his conscience, obligated himself not that "evidence as to the market value to assess at more than 33 per cent of of the stock of a corporation and the actual value. If the offer had been amount at which its property is reto prove a recent assessment of plain- turned for taxation is, of course, not tiff's property, it, doubtless, would conclusive as to the value of the prophave been entertained.”
erty owned by the corporation, but
such evidence may be considered by UI. Orener's valuation for assessment.
the jury for what it is worth, in a. General rule.
connection with other evidence, as The owner's valuation in rendering throwing light upon the value of the property for assessment is evidence property.” Vernon Shell Road Co. v. of value. United States v. First Nat. Savannah (1894) 95 Ga. 387, 22 S. E. Bank (1918) 250 Fed. 299, Ann. Cas.
625, supra. 1918E, 36; Beckwith v. Talbot (1874) The rule has been also applied as 2 Colo. 639 (cattle); Vernon Shell to the value of cattle, in an action on Road Co. v. Savannah (1894) 95 Ga. contract (Beckwith v. Talbot (1874) 387, 22 S. E. 625 (corporation);
(corporation); 2 Colo. 639), and in an action for damMaysville & B. S. R. Co. v. Sparks ages in obstructing ingress and egress (1893) 14 Ky. L. Rep. 671 (obiter); (Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. Sparks Rosenberger v. H. E. Wilcox Motor Co. (1893) 14 Ky. L. Rep. 671 (obiter: (1920) Minn, 177 N. W. 625 supra). (corporation; obiter) ; Toledo Consol. In an action against a corporation Street R. Co. v. Toledo Electric Street for selling its stock to the plaintiff R. Co. (1893) 12 Ohio C. C. 367, 5 Ohio with false representations as to its C. D. 643 (corporation); Mifflin Bridge value, the court expressed the opinCo. v. Juniata County (1891) 144 Pa. ion that the statements of the defend. 365, 13 L.R.A. 431, 22 Atl. 896 (same); ant's treasurer to the city assessor, West Chester & W. Pl. Road Co. v. placing a less value upon the defendChester County (1897) 182 Pa. 40, 37 ant's assets, was competent evidence. Atl. 905 (same).
Rosenberger v. H. E. Wilcox Motor This has been held in eminent Co. (1920) Minn. 177 N. W. 625, domain proceedings. United States supra. v. First Nat. Bank (1918) 250 Fed. But the value as given for assess299, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 36; Vernon ment by the owner is not conclusive Shell Road Co. v. Savannah (1894) on him in eminent domain proceed95 Ga. 387, 22 S. E. 625; Toledo ings. New Orleans P. R. Co. v. MurConsol. Street R. Co. v. Toledo Elec rell (1884) 36 La. Ann. 344. tric Street R. Co. (1893) 12 Ohio C. C. And the owners of real property 367, 5 Ohio C. D. 643; Mifflin Bridge are not estopped by their tax returns Co. v. Juniata County (1891) 144 Pa. under oath, valuing such property at 365, 13 L.R.A. 431, 22 Atl. 896; West less than $5,000, from asserting that Chester & W. Pl. Road Co. v. Chester such property has that value, in order County (1897) 182 Pa. 40, 37 Atl. 905. to sustain the jurisdiction of the
In United States v. First Nat. Bank Federal Supreme Court of a writ of (Fed.) supra, it was held that the error to review a judgment of the owner's valuation in listing lands for Hawaiian supreme court in an action taxes was admissible in eminent do of ejectment. Spreckles v. Brown main proceedings, as independent (1908) 212 U. S. 208, 53 L. ed. 476, 29 evidence of value as well as for pur Sup. Ct. Rep. 256. poses of contradiction of the owner. It may be noted, while not within
In Baltimore v. Himmel (1919) 135 the scope of this annotation, that in Md. 65, 107 Atl. 522, the court ex an eminent domain case the court said: pressed a similar opinion.
“The testimony as to statements made In a proceeding by a city to ap by one who was a director, a clerk, propriate to public use for streets so and the auditor of the corporate pe