
    WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. SLAVIN.
    1. Eminent Domain — Value—Evidence—Sales Contract.
    'Sales contracts or offers are suspect as tools in condemnation evaluations, because such evidence is prone to be fraudulent and. uncertain. :
    2. Same — Value—Evidence—Sales Contract — -Admissibility.
    A sales contract or offer submitted as evidence of the value of land being condemned must be bona fide, and the parties must be able to perform, to make it admissible.
    3. Same — Value—Evidence—Sales Contract — Exclusion—Discretion of Court.
    Refusal by trial court to allow admission of purported sales contract in evidence to show value of land being condemned AeM, not an abuse of discretion, where the only proof that purchaser corporation could fulfill its obligations under the contract- ■ was the unsupported testimony of a witness, who claimed to be an officer of the corporation, that he had seen the reports of the corporation and that it had the necessary funds or capital-raising potential to carry out the purchase.
    4. Same — Necessity of Taking — Determination by Board — Prima Eacie Evidence.
    Determination by board of trustees of State university that taking of certain lands is necessary is prima facie evidence ' - of necessity of taking in condemnation proceedings.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1-3] 27 Am Jur 2d, Eminent Domain § 428.
    ■Admissibility, in eminent domain, proceedings, of evidence as to price -paid for condemned real property on sale prior to the proceeding. 55 ALR2d 791.
    [4, 5] 27 Am Jur 2d, Eminent Domain § 404.
    [6] 27 Am Jur 2d, Eminent Domain § 390.
    [7] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses § 872.
    Propriety and correctness of instructions regarding maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” 90 ALR 74.
    [8] 27 Am Jur 2d, Eminent Domain § 471.
    [9] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 1009.
    
      5. Same — Necessity—Evidence.
    Declaration by board of trastees of State university that it is necessary to the well-being of students to provide grouped student residential facilities with open spaces and recreational and park areas close to student dormitories, supported by testimony of board members and faculty members that planned park and recreational areas are important to physical and psychological well-being of students, was competent evidence to go to jury on question of necessity of taking appellants’ lands for building of dormitories, as against contention that buildings could be built on lands planned for park and recreational areas, and that taking other lands was not necessary.
    6. Same — State University — Authority.
    Board of trustees of a State university held, to have necessary authority to condemn lands for building dormitories by virtue of statute establishing board and giving it general powers, and concurrent resolutions of legislature which approved acquisition of lands and construction of dormitories (PA 1963, [2d Ex Sess], No 48, as amended by PA 1964, No 14; HCB No 61 [1962]; HCB No 58 [1964]).
    7. Witnesses — Credibility—Instruction.
    Correct rule of credibility of witnesses is that, if testimony of witness is false in one aspect, jury may disregard it entirely, not that jury must disregard it entirely.
    8. Eminent Domain — Award—Limits.
    A condemnation award is not disturbed on appeal if within the range of that which is presented as competent, expert testimony.
    9. Costs — Public Question — Condemnation of Land for University.
    No costs are awarded on appeal by landowners on grounds that no necessity was shown for taking of lands by State university for building of dormitories, and that award of damages was insufficient, a public question being involved.
    Appeal from Kalamazoo; Sweet (Luden F.), J.
    Submitted Division 3 December 9, 1966, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 2,275.)
    Decided March 14, 1967.
    Leave to appeal granted June 8, 1967.
    See 379 Mich 768,
    
      Western Michigan University Board of Trustees brought condemnation proceedings against lands owned by Leon Slavin and Ruth Slavin. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Hardy, Starr & Ferency and Ford, Kriekard, Brown & Staton, for plaintiff.
    
      Badgley, Domke, Morrison, McVicker & Marcoux and Bauckham & Reed, for defendants.
   McG-regor, J.

This appeal arises out of eminent domain proceedings initiated by the board of trustees of Western Michigan University. Appellants own undeveloped and wooded land adjacent to the University’s land. There is dispute whether the parcel comprises approximately 40.09 acres or approximately 38 acres of land; however, this difference is not as serious as it could be, as the adjoining land of the acquiring university is also undeveloped and wooded. In May, 1964, the University was granted authority by the legislature to construct residence halls and a food service center to accommodate 1,100 students. In November of 1964, the board of trustees adopted a resolution declaring it would be necessary to take the subject parcel for public purposes.

During the 14AL/2-day trial, which produced a voluminous record, there was introduced widely divergent expert testimony as to the value of the parcel. The appellee introduced two expert witnesses who both testified the highest and best use for the land was for single-family residences, and set the value at $29,200 and $30,000 respectively.

Appellant introduced two expert witnesses who set the highest and best use of the land as for development of multifamily apartment buildings, and set the value at $414,000 and $476,500 respectively. The appellants were prohibited by the trial judge from introducing into evidence a purported sales contract between the appellants and an Ohio corporation, wherein the subject parcel would be •sold for apartment-house development for $620,000 less costs of streets, sewers, and water lines on the property.

■ "The jury returned a verdict declaring the necessity of taking the property and set just' compensation of $145,000. Judgment was entered confirming that verdict.

This appeal was filed after appellants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were denied.

This appeal proceeds on several claims of error and theories. Appellants claim error in that the purported sales contract with the Ohio corporation was réfused admission by the trial judge, that there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could determine the necessity of taking the subject parcel, that the appellee lacked the necessary authority to condemn the subject parcel, that instructions to the jury on the credibility of witnesses was inadequate, and that the verdict of the jury was inade'qiiate and without evidentiary support.

Evidence of sales contracts or offers traditionally have been suspect as tools in condemnation, eválu-ations. See Annotation, 7 ALR2d 781 (1947) f Such evidence is prone to fraud and uncertainty. Sharp v. United States (1903), 191 US 341 (24 S Ct 114, 48 L ed 211). Certainly such offers must be bona -fide and the parties capable of performance. City of. Kalamazoo v. Balkema (1930), 252 Mich 308; City of Grand Rapids v. Ellis (1965), 375 Mich 406. In. this.case, an Ohio corporation purportedly entered into the contract of purchase; however, there was insufficient proof that the corporation could " fulfill its obligation under the contract. There is only the unsupported testimony of a witness, who; claimed to be an officer of the aforesaid corporation, that he had seen the reports of the corporation and-, that it had the necessary funds or capital-raising-potential to carry out the purchase. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the admission of the proffered sales agreement, as there was insufficient foundation laid by the appellant to insure the reliability of the evidence.

•The argument was presented by the appellants: that the -board of directors of Western Michigan. University did not present sufficient'evidence of the; necessity-of taking the subject parcel for the ques-; tion to go to the jury. Appellants argued that the; board did not show the necessity of approving ,a. campus development plan encompassing the appellants’ land and maintaining land owned by. the. university, adjacent to the subject parcel, as a-recreational and nature-study area. Appellants’" counsel argued that today’s youth are no longer, interested in.the “birds and the bees”, thus the proposed nature park is foolhardy. .It is .this, 'Court’s opinion that such an argument is unfort-u-' nate and ill-informed. The board of trustees of Western Michigan University has the responsibility of maintaining an institution to educate several thousand students. Const 1963, art 8, § 6, PA 1963 (2d Ex Sess), No 48, as amended (Stat Ann 1965. Cum Supp § 15.1120[1] et seq.). Its determination of necessity is prima facie evidence of necessity. City of Allegan v. Vonasek (1932), 261 Mich 16; In re Acquisition of Land for Civic Center (1953), 335 Mich 582. There was testimony by the members of the board of trustees and the faculty of the university that the park and recreational areas planned áre important to the physical and psychological well-. being of the students. The board of trustees declared, and supported with testimony, that it is necessary to the well-being of the students to provide grouped student residential facilities, with open spaces and recreational and park areas close to student dormitories. Such testimony was competent evidence to go to the jury on the question of necessity.

The appellants seem to argue that the proper course for university development is to place future buildings by considering only where there is physical room for them and where the ground is proven capable of supporting such buildings. There was testimony of experts on drainage and sewer facilities that supports the proposition that the proposed park area would be undesirable for dormitories even under the appellants’ limited criteria for adequate construction sites. Thus, under the theories of both the appellants and appellee, we find the jury had sufficient basis for the finding that it was necessary for the subject parcel to be taken for a public purpose.

As to the argument that the board of trustees lacked the requisite legal authority to condemn the subject parcel, we find that it had the necessary authority by virtue of PA 1963 (2d Ex Sess), No 48, as amended by PA 1964, No 14 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 15.1120[8]); House Concurrent Besolution No 61 (1962), House Journal, pp 1302, 1934; and House Concurrent Besolution No 58 (1964), House Journal, pp 850, 1824, which specifically authorized the construction of the new dormitories for Western Michigan University.

The appellants claim that there was an improper instruction as to the credibility of witnesses in that there should have been an instruction that, if the testimony of a witness was false in one regard, it was false in the whole. Appellants’ attorney noted Ms exception to the charge in this regard immediately after the charge. The trial judge refused to modify his charge on the grounds that it was adequate as given. We agree. The proposed charge would have been incorrect. If the testimony is false in one aspect, the jury may in its discretion, disregard the entire testimony, or it may give credence to other testimony supported by other witnesses or evidence. People v. Johns (1953), 336 Mich 617; People v. Hunter (1963), 370 Mich 262. It is the opinion of this Court that reversible error was not committed by the trial court in charging the jury.

The precedent in Michigan is that condemnation awards are not disturbed on appeal if within the range of competent evidence. Department of Conservation v. Connor (1947), 316 Mich 565. The decision of the lower court is affirmed, as within the range of what was presented as competent, expert testimony. No costs, a public question being involved.

T. G. Kavanagh, P. J., and J. H. Grows, J., concurred.  