DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF REAL ESTATE 100 
which is undoubtedly meant, not what the owner would realize 
at a forced sale, but the price that he could obtain after rea- 
sonable and ample time, such as would ordinarily be taken by 
an owner to make sale of like property.’ . .. But in many 
instances, as in the case before us, there is no actual demand or 
current rate of price, either because there have been no sales of 
similar property, or because the particular piece is the only 
thing of its kind in the neighborhood, and no one has been able 
to use it for the purpose for which it is suitable and for which 
it may be highly profitable to use it. . . . From the neces- 
sity of the case the value must be arrived at from the opinions 
of well-informed persons, based upon the purposes for which 
the property is suitable. . . . What is done is merely to take 
into consideration the purposes for which the property is suit- 
able, as a means of ascertaining what reasonable purchasers 
would in all probability be willing to give for it, which, in a 
general sense, may be said to be the market value. And in 
such an inquiry it is manifest that the fact that the property 
has not previously been used for the purposes in question is 
irrelevant. The current of authority sustains these views.” 
What a Purchaser can Afford to Pay is not Market Value. — 
The value to the person who desires to acquire the property, 
the amount, in other words, which such person can afford to 
pay for it, is not its market value. In the Chandler-Dunbar 
Water Power Co. case above referred to the U.S. Supreme 
Court says (229 U.S. 80): 
“In a condemnation proceeding the value of the property to 
the Government for its particular use is not a criterion. The 
owner must be compensated for what is taken from him, but 
that is done when he is paid its fair market value for all avail 
able uses and purposes.” 
Reference may also be had to the “ Minnesota Rate Cases ” 
(230 U.S. 352, 451). 
And also to “ Five Tracts of Land in Cumberland Tp., Adams 
Co. Pa. v5. U.S.” (101 Fed. 661, 664). 
U.S. 5s. Honolulu Plantation Co. (122 Fed. 581, 584; 58 
Circuit Ct. Appeals 279). 
The proposition that the necessity of the party desiring to