
    FIXING VALUES IN A CONDEMNATION CASE.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    The Union Grain & Hay Co. v. The City of Cincinnati.
    Decided, March, 1911.
    
      Eminent Domain — Independent Judgment of Jurors as to Value May Be Applied With the Evidence — Only Prejudicial Error Considered on Review.
    
    In fixing the value of property in a condemnation suit, the jury in .considering the evidence tefore them may also apply their own sound judgment as to value, and where it does not appear that the jury acted on any wrong basis or with partiality or bias their verdict will not be set aside except for prejudicial error. .
    
      Littleford, James, Frost & Foster and C. W. Baker, for plaint-. iff in error.
    
      Albert II. Morrill, contra.
    
      Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
   Notwithstanding the alleged errors claimed to have been committed at the trial of the above ease we are of the opinion that the same are not prejudicial. We have caréfully examined the record and believe that the finding of the jury is in conformity with the evidence in the case.

In considering the fair market value of the property sought to be condemned, the jury may not only resort to the evidence before them, but may consider also in connection therewith their own good sound judgment as to the value.

The rule seems to be that when it is not fairly evident that any substantial injustice has been done, the proceedings of a jury will be affirmed; the presumption being that the jury took into 'account all facts bearing on the question of damages, and that there was no bias on the part of the jury that stood in the way of .a fair verdict (Mills on Eminent Domain, Section 259). Such findings should not be set aside except on good cause, but not because the parties are dissatisfied with the amount recovered.

In the examination of this record, we do not think the jury in determining the value acted upon a wrong basis, or from any partiality,' bias or prejudice, nor .are any of the errors of which complaint is made of such character as would furnish any inference of the existence of such influence.

It is not for us to say whether plaintiff in error was entitled to more compensation than that allowed by the jury. This was the sole question to be determined by it, and as we think the same is fair, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.  