Summary
In City of Clarksdale v. Stuart, 184 Miss. 179, 185 So. 588 (1939), this Court pointed out that while a property owner's testimony is admissible as to land values, it is not conclusive.
Summary of this case from Bynum v. Mandrel Industries, Inc.Opinion
No. 33502.
January 16, 1939.
1. EVIDENCE.
In an appeal from assessing authorities, it is competent for property owner to testify regarding value of property or price which owner would be willing to accept should be sell to buyer ready and able to buy.
2. EVIDENCE.
Testimony of owner of property regarding its value is not conclusive, for purpose of assessing municipal taxes, but it is admissible.
3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
In valuing property such as real esate for municipal taxation purposes, a large latitude is allowed.
4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
In an appeal from assessing authorities, property owner had right to have court instruct jury regarding value of property.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Coahoma county; HON. WILLIAM A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.
W.W. Venable, of Clarksdale, for appellant.
The testimony of Mr. Stuart as to what he would be willing to sell the property for is not admissible.
Sharpe v. U.S., 112 Fed. 893, 57 L.R.A. 932; Crosby v. Dorward, 248 Ill. 471, 140 A.S.R. 230; Hine v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 132 N.Y. 477, 30 N.E. 985; Union Traction Co. v. Anderson, 146 Tenn. 476, 25 A.L.R. 1496; Cape Girardeau v. Hunze, 314 Mo. 438, 47 L.R.A. 25; Peters v. McPhadden, 75 Wn. 525, 135 P. 26; Peagler v. Davis, 143 Ga. 11, 84 S.E. 59; Kansas City Grandview Ry. Co. v. Haake, 84 A.L.R. 1477.
The court erred in instructing the jury that they might consider in arriving at the true value "a price not at what it might bring at a forced sale but a price that the owner would be willing to accept and would expect to receive for it, if she were disposed to sell it to another, able and willing to buy."
The test of the law as to market value is not what the owner might be willing to take but means the price which it will bring from the buyer who is willing to pay its value.
Parish Co. v. Y. M.V.R.R. Co., 103 Miss. 288.
W.B. Miller, of Clarksdale, for appellee.
It was the duty of the jury to assess the property in question and any testimony or circumstances that would assist them in any way in arriving at its true value would be competent. "Considerable latitude is allowed in questions of value," said Justice Ethridge in his opinion in the case of Compress Company v. Town of Gloster, 115 Miss. 587, which is an appeal case from an assessment made by the Town of Gloster against the Compress Company, and I think settles all questions raised by the appellant in this case.
I think the testimony of the witnesses Peay and Sommers was competent and should have gone to the jury.
The instruction complained of quotes Section 3145 of Code of 1930, relating to the assessment of lands, and the part of said section copied in said instruction is "And not what it might bring at a forced sale, but what the owner would be willing to accept and would expect to receive for it if she were disposed to sell it to another able and willing to buy." This section of the code and the case of Gloster Compress Trading Co. v. Town of Gloster, 115 Miss. 578, seems to answer counsel for appellant in every way and for that reason we have not attempted to answer the many cases cited from other states when our own court has fully settled the matter.
This is a companion case to the City of Clarksdale v. Mrs. G.T. Fitzhugh, Miss., 185 So. 587.
In an appeal from the assessing authorities it is competent for the property owner to testify as to the price of the property, or its value which the property owner would be willing to accept should he wish to sell, and which a buyer, ready and able to buy, would find reasonable. The statute, for assessing purposes, requires the owner to value his property on this basis. While the testimony of the owner in such matters is not conclusive, it is admissible.
In valuing property such as real estate a large latitude is allowed. This is discussed in the case of Gloster Compress Co. v. Gloster, 115 Miss. 578, 76 So. 550; and, also, as bearing on the question of value of real estate, options of sale, etc., see State Highway Commission v. Buchanan, 175 Miss. 157, 158, 165 So. 795, 166 So. 537. The statute requires the owner to list property at such price as he would expect, and be willing, to receive, if he desired to sell, and which another would be willing to offer to buy at a fair value. The property owner had a right to have the court instruct the jury on this proposition of law.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Affirmed.