*1 rehearing mental to the suggested petition as discharge the properly competency defendant to of the hav- custody children, and her duties incident to ing paramount consideratiоn in mind that the resolution welfare, are of the we disposition indicated problems presented and the court, preclude the trial proper should not record, on the motion, application plaintiff, its own or on either on sug- taking testimony speedily from gested; findings making en- specific based thereon findings tering for the to be shall show such order as interests of the children. best days thirty aсtion shall be taken within
Unless such as to cus- received, remittitur is the order from the date any subject tоdy modi- stand, made, heretofore shall by change necessary conditions, to be fication made provided. determined as therein rehearing petition for is denied. concurred, now Hilliard, formerly who
dissents. County
City Minshall. of Denver *2 Mr. Malcolm Lindsey, Mr. Frank Mr. E. Hays, L. L. for plaintiff Fundingsland, in error.
Mr. Horatio S. Messrs. Alter & Ramsey, Upton, in error. defendant
En Banc. Burke delivered court. referred to parties are hereinafter as the
These Minshall, and respectively. city brought Min- of 639 acrеs suit to condemn paying land,
shall’s $8,000 into court taking possession. and answered and judgment To $13,750. and trial to a had verdict prosecutes Five writ. this reverse that assigned, Incompetency witnesses; e., еrrors are i. 1. incompetent aof Minshall; 2. refusal 3. giving instruction; tendered instructions 3 7; 5. excessive verdict. McMillan, Kidder, witnesses, 1. they objected that It is to value. testified as
Hansen, permitted experts, quаlified were not give opinions qualification, and knew before vicinity voluntary of similar actual sale not concerned limits. are reasonable time We within *3 question these wit as to whether with the academic technically speaking, experts. real All were were, nesses experience. One had dealt estate dealers of considerable Another knew localities. in lаnds in such and farmed similar and had the in pretty They appeared idea have a definite traсts. to notwithstanding meaning un value, that the of market searching cross-examination, made statemеnts der dropped some basis remarks which furnished contrary. argument them to At least were two oрinions permitted qualifications express on value before strenuously clearly shown. This is objected irregular quali course. But after to. It was be was admissible. There could' fication striking possible object re-introducing' in it. no and then trifling. knowledge point lack of Were similar voluntary sales, mentionеd, criterion, as above a land might purchaser’s option. taken at a In earlier “times prаctically railways across our were built limitless and prairies and uncultivated such uninhabited where no jus fact sales had ever heard of. That could be no tification the unremunerated' seizure of settler’s up Given elements make homestead. which market 34 therefrom
value a could reаch its own conclusions jury fixed a The witnesses were figure. witness though Mountz v. 491, 119 Pac. Apt, 51 Colo. clearly сompetent. v. 1; 150; Denver (2d) 106 Colo. Quick, Denver v. 113 P.
2. In his conclusion support testified as to the use to the land had been put, which what in it, livestock, was raised on etc. The crops, sists that thus an ap errоneous measure of value was plied. True, This does not is market follow. measure value, not in hоwever, value in use. The latter may, proper cases, be some the former. Instruction guide to No. 4 gave the correct rule as to value and under the circumstances of this case testi could mony considered in rule. properly be applying Chicago, R.I. & P. Railway Larsen, Co. v. Denver 477;
Pac. supra. 3. The city’s tеndered instruction (unnumbered in the which was abstract) refused, was a cor probably rect definition of market However, value. said instruc tion 4No. was likewise correct and a little more specific, and for that reason we think Both preferable. not have been hence given, there wаs no error refusal.
4. The court’s instruction No. 3 part: “Where land has a well established market valuе that value should govern.” The insists that error was *4 in that the word used should have committed “must.” We think the objeсtion The remain captious. der of the instruction, plus said instruction No. puts the rule beyond doubt and the jury could not have been misled.
The court’s instruction No. 7 was a proper caution against аssuming hearsay, which entered into the opinion given an by expert, established the element as a fact. The city’s objection was that the instruction * * “states that the testimony is.based upon history; * * * wherеas, said testimony is the result of inquiries “history” Perhaps by said witness.” made point at- “hearsay.” immaterial; is The word The as- tempted difference. without a is a distinction signment merit. is without urged grossly excessive. is
5. It the vеrdict Competent both in the record fixes the value evidence by jury. higher Under well than found lower finding must stand. established rule is affirmed. Justice Bock concurring. Mr. specially by Solely ma because of what was determined jority 157, 103 in Denver court p. (2d) P. 111, 113 and Denver v. I 999, concur. Company.
Dohner Union Life Insurance Central