Valuation, depreciation and the rate base

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 174667931X

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-119897

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Grunsky, Carl Ewald http://d-nb.info/gnd/10180959X

Title:: Valuation, depreciation and the rate base

Edition:: 2. ed., revised and extended

Place of publication:: New York

Publisher:: Wiley

Year of publication:: 1927

Scope:: X, 500 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Chapter X. Notes on the determination of the value of real estate in eminent domain proceedings and for rate-fixing purposes

Collection:: Economics Books

200 VALUATION, DEPRECIATION AND THE RATE-BASE acquire property by eminent domain cannot be made the measure or market value is further made clear in: Tidewater Canal Co. vs. Archer (9 Gill and J. Md. 431; 22 Md. 307). Gardner vs. Inhabitants of Brookline (127 Mass. 358). Burt vs. Wigglesworth (117 Mass. 302). Reading and Pottsville R. R. Co. vs. Balthasser (126 Pa. St. 1). Dorlan vs. East Brandywine and W.R. 46 Pa. 520. The Stockton and Copperopolis Railroad Co. vs. Vincent Galgiani (49 Cal. 130). Admissibility of Evidence Relating to Value for a Special Purpose. — The question relating to the admissibility of evi- dence bearing directly upon the value of a tract of land for reservoir purposes is quite fully discussed in Spring Valley Water Works vs. Drinkhouse (92 Cal. 528, 532; 28 Pac. Rep. 681). The view expressed in that case that value of the land for reservoir purposes might be shown appears however to be controverted in the more recent case of ‘ Sacramento Southern Railroad Co. vs. Heilbron” (156 Cal. 408) which involves the condemnation of a strip of land for railroad purposes. It was contended in this case that the rule as laid down in California permits evidence of value for the use of the land for a particular purpose in terms of money. In reference to this contention the Court says: “Tt is seen, therefore, that this Court by its latest utterances has definitely aligned itself with the great majority of the courts in holding that damages must be measured by the market value of the land at the time it is taken, that the test is not the value for a special purpose, but the fair market value of the land in view of all the purposes to which it is naturally adapted; that therefore while evidence that it is valuable’ for this or that or another purpose may always be given and should be freely received, the value in terms of money, the price, which one or another witness may think the land would bring for this or that or the other specific purpose is not admissible as an element in determining that market value.” Apparently, if this rule is strictly adhered to, it will debar

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Valuation, depreciation and the rate base

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation