Taylor v. State Roads Commission

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by the owners and lessees of a parcel of land, located in Worcester County, from a jury award in a condemnation proceeding by the State Roads Commission. The award was $49,050 damages to the owners for the taking of 13.66 acres of a small farm containing 66 acres, and $450 damages to the lessees. The appellants dispute the correctness of the trial court’s ruling in permitting a real estate broker and appraiser, whose qualifications as an expert were unchallenged, to testify to two sales of other properties located in the vicinity of the property taken.

After stating his opinion as to the damages suffered by the appellants as a result of the taking, the appraiser testified, over objection, to the purchase price given for a similar property in a sale made five years, one and one-half months prior to the institution of the condemnation proceeding. The appellants’ only objection to this sale is a claimed lack of proximity as to time. They concede that under proper circumstances, the purchase price of a sale made five years before a taking is proper, admissible evidence insofar as proximity in time is concerned, but contend that a hard and fast rule should be laid down by this Court stating that five years, under any and all circumstances, is the maximum. The only basis for this contention is a claim that this Court “has indicated obiter its approval of a five-year limitation” in Pumphrey v. State Roads Comm’n, 175 Md. 498 , 2 A. 2d 668 , and Bergeman v. State Roads Commission, 218 Md. 137 , 146 A. 2d 48 .

This Court has stated, and repeatedly restated, the rule in Maryland. Among the cases, see Patterson v. Baltimore, 127 Md. 233, 241 , 96 A. 458 ; Williams v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 153 Md. 102, 108 , 137 A. 506 ; Bergeman v. State Roads Commission, supra. In the recent case, Lustine v. State Roads Commission, 217 Md. 274 , 142 A. 2d 566 , we stated: “We are aware that there is considerable latitude in the exercise of discretion by the lower court in ⁹⁵ determining comparable sales. * * * We think it the better policy, where there are any reasonable elements of comparability, to admit testimony as to the sales, and leave the weight of the comparison for the consideration of the jury, along with such distinguishing features as may be brought out on cross-examination or otherwise.” The rule, as thus stated, conforms with the great weight of authority elsewhere. Wassenich v. City and County of Denver, 186 P. 533, 536-537 (Colo.); 1 Orgel, Valuation Under the Law of Eminent Domain (2nd Ed.), Section 139, note 17; 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3rd Ed.), Section 21.31[2].

It is stated in this paragraph of Nichols that, “[tjhere is no fixed space of time within which sales must have taken place to be admissible and much depends upon the circumstances of each case, * * *. More latitude should be allowed when the movement of real estate in the neighborhood has been slow, and it is impossible to secure evidence of sales in the vicinity really close to the time of the taking.” As this particular sale was the only one of small farm acreage testified to by any of the experts, it may be reasonably inferred that sales of such property had not been numerous in the locality. We reaffirm the rule as stated in Lustine, supra, and hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence relative to this sale. With