Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. v. Maxey

• Decision Date: 03 September 1968
• Docket Number: ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA,No. 5--4599,5--4599
• Citation: 245 Ark. 15,430 S.W.2d 866
• Parties: GAS CO., Appellant, v. Morgan A. MAXEY et ux., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 866

430 S.W.2d 866

245 Ark. 15

ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA GAS CO., Appellant, v. Morgan A. MAXEY et ux., Appellees.

No. 5--4599.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Sept. 3, 1968.

Henry & Boyett, Searcy, for appellant.

Lightle & Tedder, Searcy, for appellees.

HARRIS, Chief Justice.

This is the second appeal of this case. ¹ Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company condemned approximately twelve acres of land for a pipeline right-of-way 80 feet wide across appellees' farm. The jury awarded a verdict of $5,770.00 ² for damages, and appellant appeals that award to this court. For reversal, it is asserted that there is no competent evidence upon which the expert witnesses for appellees could base their evaluations, and it is further asserted that the verdict is excessive.

Elvie Davis, who had lived on the Maxey farm for four years, testified that it was a cattle farm, and about 110 or 115 head of cattle were on the premises. He said there were many large rocks on the right-of-way after the construction crew left the line, and also rocks on the land adjoining the right-of-way, having been blown out by dynamite, and scattered across the 12-acre meadow where the pipeline crossed. Davis testified that he broke his mowing machine and tore up a disc, and was only able to sow part of the field; he could not plow the right-of-way, as there were too many rocks.

Mrs. Dorothy Beckman, who had sold real estate for about six years, and who at the time of trial, also operated a cattle farm, testified that she was acquainted with land sales, and familiar with lands in White County. She described the condition of the right-of-way as follows:

'It is the biggest mess I ever looked at, you couldn't get any kind of mowing machine in that hay meadow without ruining it. I don't know how you could reseed it. Where it goes through the woods is nothing but rock on down toward Mr. Baker's place, it looks like a rocky stream bed. There was some bluestem grass down there in the woods and they have blown that all out. I don't know how anybody could grow anything there.'

The witness estimated the value of the farm before the taking at $80,000.00, and she stated that the value after the taking was $72,500.00, basing her opinion upon damage to the twelve and one-half acres right-of-way at $200.00 per acre, and the damage to the land outside the right-of-way, because of rock and debris left on it, at $4,000.00. ³ The estimate of damage included the fact that the land would have to be reseeded, and a dozer obtained to bury the rocks.

C. L. Lewis, who had engaged in cleaning up land for about four years, and who owned his own dozers, testified that the cost of cleaning up and re-seeding the right-of-way and the adjoining premises would be between $4,000.00 and $5,000.00. Admittedly, the witness had never cleaned up any pipeline right-of-way.

T. H. Young, holder of a real estate license, and who had previously worked for a real estate office, testified that the difference in the before and after taking value of the Maxey farm was $7,576.00, and in reaching this figure, he considered the cost of cleaning up the right-of-way, removing rocks and boulders from the land adjoining the right-of-way, and the hauling of top soil.

There was a drastic difference in the estimates of amount of damage given by appellant's witnesses, but we are here only concerned with whether there was substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

Appellant concedes that the court correctly instructed the jury as to the measure of damages (difference in the market value of the lands before and after the taking), but it is insisted that the witnesses used erroneous methods in reaching their conclusions, and the result (it is argued) is that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. For instance, Mrs. Beckman testified that she did not examine the records of sales in White County for comparable sales, did not use the income approach, and, in reaching her conclusions, gave some consideration to the price the farmers were asking for their lands. This last, of course, was not admissible, but the trial court told the jury to disregard this particular testimony. Mrs. Beckman stated that it was not necessary that she look up sales, since she was already familiar with the value of lands in the vicinity. The proof reflected that she had sold property off and on for about six years, including a number of farms, and she stated that the basis that she primarily used for arriving at the fair market value was what other places were selling for.

Entirely aside from the fact that the jury was told to disregard the portion of her testimony relating to the amount the farmers considered their land to be worth, we have held contrary to appellant's contention. In Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Russell, 240 Ark. 21, 398 S.W.2d 201, this court said:

'It is at once apparent that if we sustain the commission's contention it will hardly be possible in the future for a landowner or an expert witness to give an admissible opinion about the value of property. In nearly every instance a landowner who has known his land for years, or an expert witness who has acquainted himself with a piece of property, takes into account facts that he knows only by hearsay or that for some other reason would not be admissible as independent evidence upon the examination in chief. If the witness' candid admission that he has considered such matters destroys his testimony, only...