Opinion by
This аction was to recover the value of land takеn by the defendant company under the right of eminent domain for the purpose of building a station. The specifications of error all relate to the admission of tеstimony offered by the defendant. The main ground of the appellant’s complaint is that the defendant was allowed to prove the circumstances attending the sаle of two properties in the immediate vicinity. The plaintiff’s counsel had called the attention of witnessеs on both sides to these sales, his own in their examination in сhief, and on the cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses he had shown the prices paid. On the cross-еxamination of the plaintiff’s witnesses it appearеd that one of them had based his opinion of the value of the plaintiff’s property entirely on one of these sales, and that another witness had based his opinion mainly if not exclusively on the two sales. The prices рaid for these . properties thus became a stаndard of value of property in the vicinity. The defendаnt’s offer was not to show the pric'es paid for these two properties but to prove by the purchasers that the sales were made under special circumstances, and that the prices were greatly in exсess of the market values and were not a criterion thereof.
It has been long established that the proper test of the value of land taken under the right of eminеnt domain is its market value, and that this value is not to be asсertained by proof of particular sales but by the gеneral selling price of land similarly situated. While partiсular sales may not be proved as estab
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.