Flint P. M. R. Co. v. Railroad Co., 64 Mich. 350. In our recent decision in Re Widening of Michigan Avenue, 298 Mich. 614, 620, Mr. Justice BOYLES stated: "Nor can this court set up a formula or dictate the method which must be followed by the jury in its determination of value."

The court may not disturb the jury's determination of value as long as it is within the fair range of the testimony. In re Widening of Michigan Ave, 298 Mich 614; 299 NW 736 (1941). In each case, it was for the jury to weigh the testimony of the witnesses to determine the highest and best use of the property and the fair market value of the property.

Michigan has for many years recognized that determination of a condemnee's cost to cure is a valid method of appraising the severance damages for which the condemnee is entitled to compensation. See In re Widening of Michigan Ave, Fourteenth to Vinewood, 298 Mich. 614; 299 N.W. 736 (1941); In re Widening of Michigan Ave, Roosevelt to Livernois, 280 Mich. 539; 273 N.W. 798 (1937); In re Widening of Bagley Ave, 248 Mich. 1; 226 N.W. 688 (1929); Detroit v Loula, 227 Mich. 189; 198 N.W. 837 (1924); Jack Loeks Theatres, Inc v Kentwood, 189 Mich. App. 603; 474 N.W.2d 140 (1991). However, it has also been recognized that the cost-to-cure damages in a given case are not unlimited. Thus, in In re Widening of Michigan Ave, supra, 298 Mich. 618, our Supreme Court found improper a condemnee's proposed award of damages consisting of the market value of the property taken, possession of the remainder property, and cost-to-cure expenses where the total damages exceeded the market value of the whole property before the taking.

" In re Widening of Michigan Avenue, Fourteenth to Vinewood, 298 Mich. 614, we said: "The award made by the jury was within the minimum and maximum amounts of damages as disclosed by the record, and the findings of the jury are supported by the evidence."

" Chicago Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Hough, 61 Mich. 507. While so-called consequential damages are allowable under some circumstances ( In re Widening of Bagley Avenue, 248 Mich. 1; In re Widening of Michigan Avenue, Roosevelt to Livernois, 280 Mich. 539; In re Widening of Michigan Avenue, Fourteenth to Vinewood, 298 Mich. 614), it does not necessarily follow that such damages are invariably allowable under all conditions in the taking of private property for public use. See In re Petition of StateHighway Commissioner, 326 Mich. 183; In re Slum Clearance Between Hastings, Gratiot, De Quindre and Mullett Streets, supra.

In re Widening of Michigan Avenue, Roosevelt to Livernois, 280 Mich. 539; In re Widening of Bagley Avenue, supra. While special objections are made to the inadequacy of the awards as to particular parcels, it will be found that the award in each case is within the maximum and minimum amounts testified to by the experts. In re Widening of Michigan Avenue, Fourteenth to Vinewood, 298 Mich. 614; People, for the use and benefit of Regents of University of Michigan, v. Pommerening, 250 Mich. 391; Commission of Conservation of Department of Conservation v. Hane, 248 Mich. 473. It is true that in most instances the jury did not award much more than the minimum estimate of value placed by the experts for the city, but there is no claim that the awards were below such estimate. Although, if the determination of the amount of the awards had been left to some of us, we might have awarded larger sums, this is not ground for reversal.

" This case is quoted with approval in In re Widening of Michigan Avenue, Fourteenth to Vinewood ( Parcel 90) (1941), 298 Mich. 614, as follows: "The jury in a condemnation case is, as in other cases, the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the truthfulness of their statements.

Nor will this Court interfere with such an award that is clearly within the range of the evidence offered. See the English and Flanders Cases, supra, citing In re Widening of Michigan Avenue, Roosevelt to Livernois ( Parcel 68) (1937), 280 Mich. 539; In re Widening of Michigan Avenue, Fourteenth to Vinewood ( Parcel 90) (1941), 298 Mich. 614; In re Widening of Michigan Avenue ( Rott's Appeal) (1941), 299 Mich. 544. See Const 1908, art 13, § 1. — REPORTER.