Alabama Power Co. v. Chandler, 21481
| Decision Date | 22 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 21481,21481 |
| Citation | 123 S.E.2d 767,217 Ga. 550 |
| Parties | ALABAMA POWER COMPANY v. J. H. CHANDLER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
James Maddox, E. J. Clower, Rome, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
This litigation arose when Alabama Power Company filed a proceeding in rem to condemn and thus acquire a specified interest in certain lands on the Coosa River in Floyd County. The petition named J. H. Chandler as a party defendant to the proceeding. Assessors were duly selected and a majority of them, after hearing the evidence, awarded $48,000 for the interest in the property being thus acquired. The condemnor paid the award into the registry of the Superior Court of Floyd County, and in due time entered an appeal to a jury in that court. On Chandler's application therefor, the full amount of the award was paid to him as owner of the property. On the trial, a jury found the value of the property to be $19,000, and a judgment of the verdict was accordingly rendered. Chandler moved for a new trial on the usual general grounds and later amended his motion by adding several special grounds. His amended motion was denied and he excepted to that judgment and sued out a writ of error to the Court of Appeals. That court held that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant movant a new trial for the reasons alleged in special grounds 9 and 20 of his amended motion. See Chandler v. Alabama Power Co., 104 Ga.App. 521, 122 S.E.2d 317. The condemnor applied to this court for the writ of certiorari, assigning error in its application on the rulings which the Court of Appeals made adverse to it. Its application for the writ was granted by this Court to review those rulings. Held:
1. On its review of this case, the Court of Appeals rendered the following decision: 'Judgment reversed for the reasons stated in divisions 5 and 14 of the opinion.' Division 5 deals with special ground 9 of the motion for new trial which alleges that the trial judge erred in excluding certain testimony given by the owner (J. H. Chandler). Respecting this the record shows that he was asked on direct examination if he would be able to make a profit from the operation of his farm if he were unable to plant the land being condemned in cotton. His answer was: On motion therefor the trial judge excluded Chandler's answer from evidence, and the Court of Appeals held that he erred in doing so. As to this, we think the Court of Appeals was in error. In a proceeding to condemn only a portion of a tract of land the only question to be determined by the jury is the amount which the condemnor should pay as just and adequate compensation for the part taken and consequential damages, if any, to the remaining portion of the tract, as such damages may be offset, but not exceeded, by consequential benefits. Code, (Ann.) § 2-301, Const. art. 1, § 3, par. 1; § 36-504; Atlanta Terra Cotta Co. v. Ga. Ry. and Electric Co., 132 Ga. 537, 64 S.E. 563. Chandler's testimony that, if he were unable to plant the land being condemned in cotton, he did not figure he would be able to make a profit from an operation of the remaining portion of his farm and would therefore lose it is a mere conclusion of the witness, and supplies no facts on which a jury could base a verdict for consequential damages. Accordingly, it was inadmissible for any purpose and its exclusion was therefore proper.
2. Division 14 of the opinion deals with special ground 20 of the motion, which complains about the court's failure to give a requested written charge. In a proceeding to condemn land, it has been held both by this court and the Court of Appeals that it is competent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State, 25258
...v. State, 156 Ga. 862(1), 120 S.E. 124; Bagwell & Stewart, Inc. v. Bennett, 214 Ga. 780(3), 107 S.E.2d 824; Albama Power Company v. Chandler, 217 Ga. 550, 552, 123 S.E.2d 767. 10. The final enumeration of error complains that the court erred in refusing to recharge the jury the definition o......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Raines
...132 Ga. 725, 727, 64 S.E. 1073; Chandler v. Alabama Power Co., 104 Ga.App. 521, 537, 122 S.E.2d 371, reversed on other grounds in 217 Ga. 550, 123 S.E.2d 767. It is the duty of one who signs a paper which may in any wise affect him, his property or his rights in connection therewith, to rea......
-
Klumok v. State Highway Dept.
...of consequential damages. Chandler v. Alabama Power Co., 104 Ga.App. 521, 537(19), 122 S.E.2d 317, reversed on another point, 217 Ga. 550, 123 S.E.2d 767. 4. Two of the State's witnesses testified concerning consequential damages. As this evidence embraced the loss of access rights, there i......
-
Department of Transp. v. Gunnels, 70045
...that [go] out with the jury." Chandler v. Ala. Power Co., 104 Ga.App. 521, 522-523(18), 122 S.E.2d 317 rev'd on other grounds, 217 Ga. 550, 123 S.E.2d 767. We believe the same rule should attach when the condemnation is accomplished by a declaration of taking. Cf. Aiken v. Dept. of Transp.,......