Applefeld v. Mayor of Baltimore

⁵²⁹ Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. As t-ho result of a condemnation proceeding in the Baltimore City Court the appellant was awarded $13,000 for certain property required by the city as part of the public reservation known as the Civic Center. Ota this appeal the principal question to be decided relates to the exclusion of evidence offered by the appellant as to the structural value of the building's on the land condemned. The appellant owned a leasehold estate in the property subject to an irredeemlable ground rent of $150 per annum.

The condemnation was in fee simple and the total amount awarded by the inquisition returned by the jury was $16,500, which included an allowance of $3,000 to the owners of the reversion, and $500 to a tenant, who was in possession of part of the property for a term which was soon to expire. The lot of ground affected by the condemnation extends from Cay street on the west to Frederick street on the east, and is improved with buildings fronting on those streets and used for store and warehouse purposes. Ota behalf of the city two real estate experts testified that the total value of the property in fee simple was $16,500, and another estimated it at $16,000. The reversion was valued at $3,000 on the basis of a capitalization of the ground rent at five per cent.

The only witness for the city who appears fromi the record may have testified in detail as to the elements of the value of the property estimated the land to be worth $8,500 and the buildings $7,400. In addition to the appellant’s own testimony that he bought the property about thirteen years ago for $8,000, subject to the annua] ground x*ent of $150, and that five years later he spent from $10,000 to $12,000 in improving the building's, and that he considers his leasehold interest in the property to be now worth between $28,000 and $30,000, two witnesses were produced on his behalf who testified as to the value of the land alone, one of them estimating it at $9,712 and the other at, $9,57l subject to the ground rent. An effort was later made by the appellant to prove the value of the build ⁵³⁰ ings by having an expert builder testify as to the cost of their reproduction with a due allowance for depreciation. The attempt to introduce this evidence was opposed by the city, and its objection was sustained.

In the case of McGaw v. Baltimore, 131 Md. 430 , where the admissibility of evidence of structural value was involved, we held that such value may be proved, with a due allowance for depreciation, as reflecting upon the market value of the land condemned, provided the buildings are well adapted to the land and its surroundings, and their structural value rep-res,ents a fairly proportionate enhancement of the market value of the land. The principle of the rule which has thus been to recently stated by this Oourt is that the market value of the property is the ultimate and only measure of the award, blit for the purpose of determining that value evidence of the structural value of the buildings is proper to be considered, unless they are not suited to the land and the locality or the structural value of such improvem¡ents is disproportionate to any enhancement in the value of the land which they could be reasonably supposed to produce. There is evidence in the record from which the jury might have found that in this instance the buildings are adapted to thei land and its surroundings and that they add to the market value of the land to an extent fairly proportionate to their own structural value. Certain specific offers of testimony to further support and develop' that theory were rejected in consequence of objections interposed by the