198 VALUATION, DEPRECIATION AND THE RATE-BASE 
the value of the islands having been found to be $300 aside 
from any consideration of their value for boom purposes and 
$9058.33 due to their adaptability for this special use. 
The Court granted a motion for a new trial, unless the owner 
would consent to accept $5500. This amount was acceptable 
to the owner and judgment for this amount was entered in his 
favor. The Boom Company then appealed. 
The Court is perhaps a little over-confident in saying that 
the market value can be readily estimated. In all other respects 
the statement is clear and logical. 
The proposition is being generally recognized by the courts 
that, when the right of eminent domain is exercised, the ques- 
tion to be considered is What is the value of the property for 
the most advantageous uses to which it may be applied ?” 
See Goodin 7s. Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal Co. (18 
Ohio St. 169). 
Young vs. Harrison (17 Ga. 30). 
U.S. vs. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. (229 U.S. 53, 
76). 
In this last-named case referring to the award of special 
value for canal and lock purposes it was said: 
“ The exception taken to the inclusion as an element of value 
of the availability of these parcels of land for lock and canal 
purposes must be overruled. That this land had a prospective 
value for the purpose of constructing a canal and lock parallel 
with those in use had passed beyond the region of the purely 
conjectural or speculative. That one or more additional parallel 
canals and locks would be needed to meet the increasing demands 
of lake traffic was an immediate probability. This land was 
the only land available for the purpose.” 
See also Shoemaker vs. U.S. (147 U.S. 282). 
In the case of “San Diego Land and Town Co. vs. George 
Neale ef al” (78 Cal. 63, 68; 30 Pac. Rep. 372; 3 L. R. A. 372) 
the majority of the Court says: 
“ The consensus of the best-considered cases is that for the 
purposes in hand the value to be taken is the market value, by