while minerals are not to be separately evaluated, “ ‘consideration may be given to the quantity of the mineral that can be extracted and to the value thereof purely as evidence for arriving at the value of the land.’’ 4 Nichols Eminent Domain (3d ed.) 245, § 13.22[1].”
How later courts described this case
- while minerals are not to be separately evaluated, “ ‘consideration may be given to the quantity of the mineral that can be extracted and to the value thereof purely as evidence for arriving at the value of the land.’’ 4 Nichols Eminent Domain (3d ed.) 245, § 13.22[1].”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mallery, J.
(dissenting) — I do not agree that it was reversible error to exclude the testimony of Mr. Dunn, who was a gravel-pit owner and not an expert on land appraisals, to the effect that gravel was selling at retail in place in the *730 community for ten cents a yard. Indeed, to present the jury with such an isolated fact invites error.
Land appraisals fall in the realm of expert opinion. The jurors have neither the knowledge nor the experience to enable them to evaluate the various factors involved. The better reasoned authorities hold that a unit price per yard of the mineral content of land should not be presented separate and apart from an expert’s opinion as to the fair market value of the land in question. Even then, it should appear as no more than one of the factors by which an expert arrives at his opinion. See United States v. Land in Dry Bed of Rosamond Lake, Cal., 143 F. Supp. 314 .
I, therefore, think it was proper to exclude the testimony in question, because Mr. Dunn was never qualified as an expert and could not give opinion evidence as to the value of the land. In this situation, isolated evidence of the retail unit value of gravel in place would invite the jury to adopt a computation of the value of all of the gravel at the unit price as to the value of the land.
I dissent.