(concurring). I concur in the result arrived at in the opinion of Judge Ellsworth, but do not agree to all that is said in that opinion. The measure of damages of the defendant for the 8-foot strip in the highway actually taken by the plaintiff is set forth in that opinion as follows:
“The reasonable present cash market value of the land actually occupied by plaintiff for the use and purpose proposed, exceeding in no instance the present market value of the entire 8-foot strip, taking into consideration that such .strip is within the limits of a public highway and subject to a public use for highway purposes; that in no instance could a greater sum be allowed as damage than would be allowed if the highway right of user was not upon the land so sought to be condemned.” This measure of damages, in.ferentially, at least, might lead the jury to believe that the defendant was entitled to the full market value of the land so taken, when, as a matter of fact, it was already in use for highway purposes, and the defendant had at best only a reversioner's interest. In most cases the damage to his interest would be merely speculative, and not more than nominal. It seems to me that a more correct measure of damáges would be the reasonable present cash, market value of the defendant’s interest in the land actually occupied by plaintiff for the use and purpose proposed, taking into consideration that such strip is within the limits of a public highway and subject to a public use for highway purposes.I am authorized to say that Spalding, J., concurs in the views herein expressed.