Hannan v. United States
131 F.2d 441
D.C. Cir.
1942
Check Treatment

*2 Hannan, Washing States,5 Mr. T. William Willis v. we United re ton, viewed, C, appellants. historically, D. legislation which divergent eventuated mutually and Attorney, Koerner, Mr. De- W. Robert procedures exclusive6 required to now partment vice, by spe- pro hac Justice, governments. followed the two Court, cial leave whom Norman sections govern which proceedings brought General, Littell, Attorney Assistant use United contain States Denny, Jr., Messrs. Charles R. counterpart 46, no of Section Bell, Attorneys, Depart- Alexander H. interpreted in Walker Hazen. Such C.,D. Washington, all of provisions appear sections, in those brief, appellee. were on concerning motions for new and oth Before MILLER and verdict,7 proceedings permis er after are RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices. sive; sharp provisions contrast to the only specified Section 46. And the condi appeal tion of par shall that it MILLER, Associate Justice. ty aggrieved by judgment.8 final is from a decree pro prove Evidence was the District in a condemnation offered -to ceeding involving which was the site De the United War States, following negotiation partment Building Washington, purchase, D. C. parcels, that, by some of contends other than those The Government appellants, constitute site of their to move set aside the failure trial, appellants the new Department Building are War and for a new verdict Washington, maintaining appeal. D. from C. offer was re foreclosed jected by the Appellants, But this contention cannot sustained. Court. Hazen,1 relying upon the case of held in We condemnation Walker Hazen,9 in Home for proceedings assign ruling this missibility error. Assuming the name of the District the ad evidence,10 appeal. But result it does not failure bars an Code,2 appear that its reached section exclusion case was pertinent under a proceedings per was error. and not first to such the burden proceedings to condemnation for for tinent who offers such evidence acquisition of land in to establish as a fact11 purchase, Proceedings of States.3 use the United which evidence offered, governed en the latter character are tirely is coercion made without compromise.12 different sections of Code.4 502, 190, App.D.C. 188, 90 F.2d States ex 1 67 rel. and for Use of Tennessee 723, Valley Authority 504, Bailey, denied 302 U.S. also, 433, 434; 44, See Shan 82 L.Ed. 559. ex rel. and Reichelderfer, Valley Authority & Const. Co. Use of non Luehs Tennessee App.D.C. 36, Reynolds, 57 F.2d 402. 115 F.2d (1929) States, Wise D.C.W.D.Ky., tit. D.C.Code States, App. .Supp. 130, 134; F See Willis United United Beaty, D.C., W.D.Va., 99 F.2d 198 F. (1929) grounds, lOO-llOo. reversed §§ D.C.Code tit. on other App.D.0. 129, 130, proce writ of error dismissed on ground, dural (1929) tit. §§ D.C.Code United States v. Free man, D.C.D.Wash., HOo. 371. See llOe, f, g. also, (1929) §§ D.C.Code tit. (1929) ; L.R. D.C.Code tit. llOi. See L.R.A..N.S., also, Procedure, Rules 11 1 Federal of Civil Ed.1940) 18(E); Rule 28 U.S.C.A. section Kankakee Park Dist. v. Heiden reich, 198, 723c. Commonwealth, O’Malley v. South Eames Commission v. ern New Chesapeake N.H. 159 A. 128. Cf. Ornstein v. O.& Ltd. App., Albert Hanson Lumber Ohio S26; Unit N.E.2d Kan ed kakee Park Dist. 67 L.Ed. 809. 289, 292; Contra: of Mt. ap- Consequently, The District Court not done. case this was complain dence of an offer to no pellants are in *3 person. owner a third The considera its exclusion. in part tion offered of other consisted recep second and, consequently, erty involved collateral evidence, calls in each tion of such was no issues its value. There trial by the exercise discretion ruling.21 in this error question Wigmore says that court.13 may that evi- conclusion be noted “in trial court be left expert private sales and exclude such discretion to property in the vi- concerning values of issues, but confusion it does involve a freely trial cinity was admitted * * it, *.”14 Where to receive otherwise the case court. The record shows large dis with is vested presented, the end that fairly was and exclusion cretion the admission pass judg- jury the best jury may the end that evidence to upon question ment of fact. the ultimate pass judg position to placed in best appellants’ Upon consideration careful fact,15 question of upon the ultimate judg- contentions we conclude exercise manner of his that.discre Court should af- ment of the District abusive, stigmatized tion should not be firmed. except light good for reason.16 Affirmed. no such reason record we find here. (dissent- Associate Justice part). ing in opinion evi The court agree that under I ap price paid by whether as to pro- govern condemnation statutes lots issue pellant ceedings in the District Co- related to The reasonable. an the use of the United States lumbia for the com years made fifteen sale omission barred proceedings.17 condemnation mencement of to set parties below move losing Conditions a new move for the verdict and to aside intervening markedly in the changed have no re- agree also that there was trial. wit fails to reveal the record period; upon admis- rulings error versible subj testify qualifications ness’ evidence, except one. Concern- sibility of test hearsay other than give or to ect18 imony.19 as follows: my views are ing that specula relevancy court, upon the issue of mar- doubtful, The trial is no and there tive evidence property, appellants’ ex- ruling.20 ket value

App.D.C. tiorari ham Bank, Washington 2d en, Olive Co. [13] Maryland Cas. Co. Columbia v. Nickerson, L.Ed. Franzen v. Ill. Young v. Bonner, denied 314 Cir., App.D.C. 854. 836, 841, Univ. Chessin, 110 A.L.R. Chicago, 366 Robinson Cir., F.2d U.S. App.D.C. 594. 137 A.L.R. Ill. Lillywhite, Incurables M. & St. F.2d 502. v. F.2d Citizens State 174; Brig- Parker, Ed. P. Times Haz 292; cer- Ry. ness 348 — mony Ill. cago, Jefferson 2d Fairbanks F. D.Wash., 113 F. 370. action there 18 [17] 21 Sharp 718. 3 Cf. Cf. Hall v. Wigmore, Wigmore, Evidence property United States v. an A. & St. P. 168 N.E. 370. Cf. Exploration price paid expert Providence, Evidence recent. taken. But Ry. Co., admitting to the reasonable Franzen Freeman, (3d (3d Sowinski, improvements 45 R.I. L.Ed. denied 305 the trans Ed. Ed. Erceg Cir., testi Chi 44A eluded evidence appellants pulsion offered fulfilled, must be and it is there as to the paid by amount the United States fore the deter similar to that which was the mine as bearing subject Upon action. the the admissibility whether in a condemnation ceeding may be introduced toas the condemnor was prop- The burden of establishing this fact erty suit, similar to that in a di- there is offering evidence. vision of authority. weight of au- Braje, 1937, of Mt. Olive *4 thority jurisdiction outside this is that 7 N.E.2d such v. Common wealth, 1934, evidence is inadmissible. But in Wash- 286 Mass. ington Hazen, Hampshire Hy Eames v. Southern New Corp., supra; we dro-Electric adopted the Heidenreich, 1927, rule the minority and held ad- Dist. v. 328 Ill. mission proper. of such evidence We see Com based our ruling upon O’Malley v. Com- mission v. monwealth, 1902, So. This is in 538.1 Supreme in proponent which the for the accord with rule a the usual that accept Court of of Massachusetts was writ- evidence must burden Judicial Holmes, by ten establishing then Chief to preliminary that facts essential Justice See, also, supporting tribunal. admissibility. the mi- its Evi nority rule the p. cases: Eames ed. Southern New In the instant case the record shows 1932, N.H.379, 159 A. Shaw up- that judge the trial took no evidence Co., 1931, Monongahela R. 110 W.Va. purchase S.E. Texas P. P. T. R. proved sought Elliott, 1928, La. So. think therefore without City, 1912, Curley Jersey N.J.L. that that at the case should reversed and L.R.A.,N.S., cf. retrial, appellants again this a if the offer Hanson Co. v. U. evidence, given oppor- they should be S. 809. The tunity showing purchase that theory admissibility is although that evi- they if make without and that purchase dence of’ a the condemnor of showing this to the satisfaction of to that involved in a con- similar be admitted. judge, the evidence must persuasive is proceeding demnation less on cannot that the exclu- I think it be said than issue market value evidence prejudicial. sion the evidence was stranger, purchase is a there no rea- dispose of I think it not warranted principle why son in should by holding the case as the does— purchase provided not be admitted appellants that did establish compul- condemnor was without purchase by the that sion; short, objection in it is held that compulsion Government was without goes weight, of evidence introduce were 'not entitled to therefore competency. not to its that evidence —for the reason Wash- left admissibility ington But condition Hazen that Home for Incurables v. purchase jurisdiction must have been com re- in doubt in this in the law appended, In a note entitled “Evidence of Illinois Sales author cites an Proceedings,” Livingston, Condemnation Col.L. case: South Park Com’rs v. (1932) 1053, the author Rev. page at N.E. 546. states “Although generally squarely 1055: it which stands proponent contrary cited, incumbent [of osition for it prior lay sales] a foundation to the two cases cited in the text. Illinois admissibility text, Of the two cases cited showing similarity, (Kankakee substantial there is a presumption voluntary that sales Livingston case, the burden here is thrown on the at decided to the support (City tacker.” the statement other of Mt. Olive v. contained in the last clause of the 7 N.E.2d sen thereafter. quoted, not, tence contrary which it will noted is The Illinois court has so far as I can ascertain, to the made in commented diver statav&nt

part gence of the text to which this footnote is in its decisions. proffered qualifying spect question whether purchases property by qualify it other similar ponent of the evidence condemnor is for the first time made cer- The record disqualify objector it. or the jurisdiction tain in this in the instant de- pages of shows several the instant case deny cisión seems to me harsh to counsel colloquy between confused appellants opportunity admissibility introducing respect they qualify can if question. the evidence they qualify it. That can it would seem admissible ruled twice that it was hardly because the doubtful circumstances not. I think the con- then that it was once under would be un- part to the fact fusion was in due compulsion must be der most unusual— Incurables Hazen Washington Home for condemnor cannot if a at a bur- since determine the did not liberty is at reasonable he take evi- qualifying disqualifying den property by condemnation proceedings. respect the law with dence. Since