## Facts

- Edward Sharp owned three adjoining farms (“Dunham,” “Gibbons,” and “White”) on the Delaware River near Fort Mott, New Jersey.
- The United States initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire the entire “Gibbons” farm (about 41.75 acres) for coastal defense works authorized by federal law and supported by a New Jersey enabling act.
- Commissioners appointed under the governing condemnation procedure appraised the land taken at $500 per acre ($20,875 total) and awarded additional damages to Sharp’s remaining farms ($12,953).
- The United States appealed the commissioners’ award, triggering a jury trial in federal court as a proceeding de novo to determine just compensation.
- The jury returned a verdict Sharp claimed was inadequate; the judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals.
- Sharp sought Supreme Court review by writ of error, challenging evidentiary rulings, the scope of compensable damages, jury instructions on valuation, and the effect of the de novo trial on the commissioners’ record and award.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of unaccepted offers to purchase or lease the condemned land is admissible to prove market value in a condemnation trial.
2. Whether, when the government takes an entire parcel, the owner may recover prospective damages to separate, adjoining parcels caused by the government’s probable use of the parcel taken.
3. Whether the trial court’s jury instructions improperly restricted valuation factors, including potential effects of projected railroads or trolleys and alleged impacts on the owner’s remaining farms.
4. Whether, after an appeal from the commissioners’ report and a trial de novo, the jury may consider the commissioners’ proceedings and award rather than only evidence introduced at the jury trial (plus any jury view).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
- The Court held it was not error to exclude evidence of mere offers to buy or lease the property as proof of market value.
- The Court held that when an entire parcel is taken, the owner cannot recover prospective damages to other separate and adjoining parcels based on the government’s probable use of the land taken.
- The Court found no reversible error in the jury instructions where the charge allowed consideration of all relevant circumstances bearing on value, including possible future transportation improvements and certain effects on remaining land.
- The Court held the appeal produced a true trial de novo, so the jury was to consider only the evidence received at the second trial, supplemented by any jury view of the premises, not the commissioners’ record or award.

## Legal Principles

- In condemnation proceedings, unaccepted offers to purchase or lease real property may be excluded as unreliable proof of fair market value.
- When only part of a single parcel is taken, compensable damages may include injury to the remainder arising from the probable use of the part taken.
- When an entire parcel is taken, just compensation does not include prospective or consequential damages to other distinct parcels merely because they are under common ownership and adjacent.
- Where the governing procedure provides for an appeal and trial de novo from a commissioners’ appraisal, the compensation determination is made on the trial evidence (and any jury view), not on the commissioners’ prior award.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the condemnation judgment, concluding that market value need not be proved through unaccepted offers, that taking an entire tract does not permit recovery for anticipated harms to separate neighboring tracts, and that a de novo jury trial replaces the commissioners’ appraisal as the basis for determining just compensation.


Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 (1903)