State Roads Comm. of Md. v. Wood

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a judgment in the amount of $30,000 entered upon the inquisition of a jury in a condemnation case. The sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony of expert appraisers. The tract of land in question contains 25.61 acres upon which is located a dwelling house where the appellees have resided for many years.

The property is located in Prince George’s County on Route 5, an arterial highway leading from Washington, D. C. to the Potomac River bridge, about seven miles from the District line. The parcel is roughly square in shape, having a frontage of 1,185 feet on Route 5. In the past two years the whole neighborhood has experienced something of a real estate boom and the property is virtually surrounded by areas that have been laid off in building lots. It is entirely suitable for subdivision purposes although it has not been platted.

The proposed relocation of Route 5, and construction of a new, controlled access road, involves the taking of 4.92 acres of the appellees’ land for the right-of-way itself and the severing of 5.7 acres to which the appellees will be denied access. The only contested issue in the case was the amount of damages, the appellant having paid $15,000 into court. Mr. Dunn, the first expert called by the appellant, testified that “the highest and best use for this land is for subdivision or development purposes.” He referred to a sale of about five acres in 1953 at an average of $2,116.00 an acre which he thought was comparable. He placed a value of $4,000 an acre on the land fronting on the old road and $1,500 on the land lying more than two hundred feet back from the road, winding up with a total of some $11,640 for the land taken.

He was asked in cross-examination if it was not true that interior lots in a development just across the road, known ³⁷² as. Yorkshire Village, were bringing more than front lots. The court sustained an objection to the question on the ground that there was no evidence concerning Yorkshire Village. The witness stated that he was “not familiar with that property”.

The court also sustained an objection to that “general line” of questions. However, the witness Carroll, called by the appellant, who arrived at the same valuation in much the same way, admitted on cross-examination that if roads .were constructed into the ■ tract the interior land might be worth as much, or more, than the front land. The witness, Jones, called by the appellees, testified without objection that the cost of putting two roads into the land condemned would be about $6,400, and that about twenty lots could be laid out there. The witness, West, testified that the land was ideal for subdivision purposes and about 95% cleared, and that the interior land was worth as much as the exterior, once it was subdivided.

He testified without objection that two different tracts of undeveloped land in the vicinity had sold for about $4,000 an acre, or an average of ten to eleven cents a square foot. He stated that he had a record of and was personally familiar with a number of sales in nearby Coolridge Acres subdivision, all at the rate of at least ten cents a square foot. At this point counsel for the appellant stated: “Again we object and move that all that testimony be stricken from the record. It deals with developed land and it deals apparently, from what I. could gather,, with individual lots.” The objection and motion were overruled, and the appellant urges this as his strongest point.

In fact, it was the only objection on his part that was not sustained. Thereafter, the witness testified without objection