Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Cook, 257 Ark. 98, 514 S.W.2d 215 (1974). It is argued that the witnesses erroneously relied upon sales of smaller tracts that, owing to their size, were not comparable as a matter of law.
Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Geeslin, 247 Ark. 537, 446 S.W.2d 245. Value cannot be based upon a figure plucked out of the air. Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Stanley, 234 Ark. 428, 353 S.W.2d 173. A landowner's opinion testimony as to the value of his property is not substantial if it is shown that he has no satisfactory explanation for it. Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Darr, 246 Ark. 204, 437 S.W.2d 463; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Duff, 246 Ark. 922, 440 S.W.2d 563; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Cook, 257 Ark. 98, 514 S.W.2d 215. Barham expressed the opinion that the value of the property, due to its condition when he moved in, was "[sixteen to eighteen thousand dollars."
In determining whether a verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we review the evidence in that light which is most favorable to the appellee and indulge all reasonable inferences favoring the support of the jury's findings. Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Cook, 257 Ark. 98, 514 S.W.2d 215 (1974); and Fields v. Sugar, 251 Ark. 1062, 476 S.W.2d 814 (1972). Here appellant argues that no substantial evidence exists from which the jury could have found that the automobile driven by appellee at the time of the accident was a temporary substitute automobile within the meaning of the policy.
The testimony of an expert witness should be stricken only if it is shown to lack a sound and reasonable basis. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Cook, 257 Ark. 98, 514 S.W.2d 215 (1974). In the case at bar, Mr. Weaver said on cross examination, in response to a question from the appellant's attorney, that he was familiar with a 3.00 acre tract of land which lay immediately across the road from the subject property.