Fairbanks v. Inhabitants of Fitchburg
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition to the county commissioners for a jury to estimate the damages caused to the petitioner by reason of the taking of a strip of his land in Fitchburg, for the purpose of laying out a highway.
Read the full summary
Petition to the county commissioners for a jury to estimate the damages caused to the petitioner by reason of the taking of a strip of his land in Fitchburg, for the purpose of laying out a highway. At the trial before the sheriff’s jury, the petitioner, who testified as a witness, was asked, “ What is the probable future use of your remaining land ? ” The respondents objected to the question, but the presiding officer allowed it to be put, and the petitioner answered, “ For manufacturing purposes.” The jury found for the petitioner. In the Superior Court, the respondents objected to the…
1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.
The question put to the petitioner does not come within the class which are allowed to be put with some liberality to witnesses, where the value of real estate is in controversy. Swan v. Middlesex, 101 Mass. 173. It called for an opinion, not of the value, but of the probable future use of real estate, whea. upon that question, facts could only be stated from which the jury might form an opinion. The witness may have formed his opinion on facts which could not have been introduced in proof as, for instance, mere rumor or the opinions of others.
The respondents seasonably objected to both…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Swan v. County of MiddlesexMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by13 opinions
- Tigar v. Mystic River Bridge AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
- Downey v. Union Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Maher v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Burt v. WigglesworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Taft v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.