1. Eminent domain ), 241 — Complaint need not allege nature of estate sought to be acquired, and judgment need not specify estate acquired.

Under Or. L. § 7099, providing that the complaint in a suit to condemn land shall describe the land, right, or easement sought to be appropriated, and section 7108, providing that the court shall give judgment appropriating the land, rights, property, easement, etc., the complaint need not allege whether plaintiff seeks to acquire a fee-simple title or an easement, and the judgment need not specify the nature of the estate acquired.

2. Eminent domain €=->262(5) — -In condemnation suit refusal to have complaint or judgment specify nature of estate held not injurious.

In a condemnation suit, if the refusal to require the complaint to allege the nature of the estate sought to be acquired or the failure ot the judgment to specify the nature of the estate was erroneous, the error was not injurious to defendant, where it brought another suit to lia,ve the nature of the estate determined in which the court held, as contended by it, that plaintiff acquired only an easement.

3. Evidence' <@=>346 — -Qualification of experts as to value held a question for the court.

In a suit to condemn part of a ranch detached from other like properties, the qualifications of witnesses concerning the value of the property held a question for the court, though the witnesses lived over 100 miles from the land and never saw it until they examined it for the purpose of forming a judgment as to its value.

4. Evidence €=543 (8) — Witnesses living at some distance from land not necessarily disqualified to testify as to value.

That expert witnesses lived at a distance of 100 miles or more from land sought to be condemned did not necessarily disqualify them to express opinions as to its value.

5. Eminent domain <§=>262 (3) — Testimony on direct examination as to sales of other property not reversible error.

In a condemnation suit it is not reversible error to permit witnesses to testify on direct examination respecting their knowledge of other sales of like property.

6. Eminent domain <©=>20 5 — Damages on account of removal of hay stacked on property condemned held too conjectural under the evidence.

Where the owner of land sought to be condemned had 1,000" tons of hay stacked thereon, and there was evidence that the cost of moving it would be from $5 to $10 a ton, and that it would be necessary to construct a field, fences, and accommodations for the men engaged in feeding cattle at the place to which it was moved at an expense of $7,500, but other testimony that the hay could be advantageously fed where it was before it would be necessary to remove it, damages on account of the hay held too conjectural and uncertain for recovery.

7. Eminent domain —Court not bound to accept estimates of value of engineers.

In a condemnation suit, the court was not bound to accept the valuation placed on the property for reservoir purposes for an irrigation project by engineers.

8. Eminent domain <§=>262 (4) —Finding on conflicting evidence as to damages from condemnation not assignable as error.

Where there was evidence that portions of defendant’s ranch which would be isolated by tbe condemnation of part of the ranch would be decreased in value and other evidence that there would be no decrease, a finding that such lands had not been damaged was not assignable as error.