OPINION
The State’s points in this highway condemnation case, except one, assert inadequacy of evidence to support each of the jury findings. We overrule аll points and affirm.
Appellees owned a tract of 95 acres which is bisected by the 35-acre strip condemned for the highway, leaving a remainder consisting of twо separated tracts of approximately 30 acres each.
The jury found (1) the value of the condemned 35-acre strip was $7,911.57; (2) the value of the remaining 60 acres before taking was $12,780.39. It was found (3) the remainder had a value of $8,478.85 after taking. Judgmеnt was rendered on the verdict.
Upon the hearing of the State’s motions for judgment nоn obstante veredicto and for new trial, the court ordered a remittitur of $1,258.59, which was remitted by appel-lees without objection.
The State says its principal сontention is that the only testimony sustaining the findings on the value of the strip taken and damаge to the remainder is that of the owner, which it says was based entirely on hearsay. Admission of the evidence is not complained of.
On direct examination Bergеr testified he believed he knew the value of the strip condemned, and it was from $225 tо $250 per acre; that the remainder had been damaged $50 per acre. Nо objection was made to his testimony. On cross-examination the State provеd he “investigated those matters as to land prices” before he bought it, and agаin had him testify as to his opinion of value and damages, having him reiterate his testimony (thаt the land taken had a market value of $225 to $250 per acre and that damage to the residue was $50 an acre) without objection or motion to strike. The Statе evoked his repetition of the elements he considered in reaching his oрinion of damages.
The State then asked Mr. Berger what he based his opinion of value on, and he replied, “I just heard around and talked around and discussed it around, аnd such as that, with people in this vicinity.” Again thereafter, without qualification or objеction, appellant elicited directly from the witness his opinion of market value and *559 damages, his testimony being the same as on direct examination. 1
The Statе effectively waived any right to complain of the admission of the evidencе of Mr. Berger under these circumstances by introducing it repeatedly on cross-examination without having made an objection. McKee v. Reed, Tex.Civ.App.,
By eliciting the opinion evidence of thе witness after hearing his answer to its question about the basis of his opinion without objection, the State assented to the competency of the witness and admissibility of his оpinion. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Kindred,
It has_ been held that the owner of property, even though unable to qualify to give opinion of the value of property of others, may testify as to the market value of his own property without detailing the basis for his opinion. It is generally held the fact of ownership qualifies him, his qualification resting on the fact that an owner ordinarily knows the value of his property. Hillin v. Hagler, Tex.Civ.App.,
It has also been held that most opinions as to value are based in part on hearsay because of the very nature of thе opinion itself, and this fact alone does not of itself preclude admissibility of the opinion. Burr’s Ferry, B. & C. Ry. Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App.,
The evidence of Berger with the other evidencе in the record is adequate to support the jury findings, and the points as to factuаl and legal inadequacy of the evidence are overruled.
Appellant’s points are each overruled.
Affirmed.
Notes
. Mrs. Berger testified she did not know the market value of the property, but had “a fair idea just from talking to people; hearsay.” Her opinion as to value and damages was thе same as her husband’s. There was no objection to or motion concerning her testimony, and its admission is not the subject of complaint here. We do not pass on whether her testimony alone would support the verdict.