Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Hood

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROBINSON
• Citation: Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Hood, 372 S.W.2d 387, 237 Ark. 202 (Ark. 1963)
• Decision Date: 11 November 1963
• Docket Number: No. 5-3062,5-3062
• Parties: ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Marvin D. HOOD et ux., Appellees.

Page 387

372 S.W.2d 387

237 Ark. 202

ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Marvin D. HOOD et ux., Appellees.

No. 5-3062.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Nov. 11, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1963.

Dowell Anders, George O. Green and Bill B. Demmer, Little Rock, for appellant.

John W. Goodson, Texarkana, for appellees.

ROBINSON, Justice.

This is a case wherein the appellant, Arkansas State Highway Commission, condemned for highway purposes 6.1 acres of land belonging to appellees, Marvin D. Hood and wife. The Commission deposited $2,250.00 in the registry of the court as just compensation. Twenty-seven acres were in the original tract. After the taking 2 1/2 acres were separated by the right-of-way from that part remaining. The case was tried before the court sitting as a jury. There was an award of $12,500.00. The Highway Commission has appealed.

Appellee Hood is engaged in the nursery business and the land involved in this litigation was used to grow nursery stock. On appeal, appellant contends that the court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence showing the value of the nursery stock independent of the land on which it was growing.

It is firmly established that the measure of damages in this kind of case is the difference in the fair market value of the land before and after the taking. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Fox, 230 Ark. 287, 322 S.W.2d 81; Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Kennedy, 233 Ark. 844, 349 S.W.2d 132. In arriving at the before and after value it is proper to take into consideration all those things pertaining to the land that a seller or purchaser would consider in arriving at the market value. Pulaski County v. Horton, 224 Ark. 864, 276 S.W.2d 706; Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Carpenter, Ark., 371 S.W.2d 535. An exception to this rule is that profits from a business conducted on the property cannot be considered. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Wilmans, Ark., 370 S.W.2d 802.

Here, appellee introduced considerable evidence going to show the number, kind, and value of the various plants growing on the land condemned. There is evidence to the effect that the nursery stock itself was worth $13,370.00, and that the witness for appellee, P. M. Brown, took that value into consideration in arriving at the market value of the land. But it is clear from the witness' testimony that he did not merely add his estimated value of the nursery stock to his estimated value of the naked land in arriving at the market value of the land with the plants in place. The witness testified that he did consider the value of the plants, but that was only one of the things considered in arriving at the market value.

The court had the correct conception of the law, and applied to the facts the proper rule of law for determining damages to be awarded the landowner. In the course of the trial the court said: 'All right, let's talk just a moment now about the law. Mr. Goodson, I rather believe the general rule to be this: I think the Court should know what's on that property. Then I think the Court would be interested in knowing the fair market value of the lands taken, which value can be calculated on the basis of the bare land plus whatever was growing there on the date the land was taken. That is, not what each plant would bring if sold to John Doe, Richard Roe, or Jim Smith, but what a willing buyer interested in this kind of business could walk out there and see all of this, and what he would be willing to give, not being obligated to buy.' The court further said: 'The best authority was in Corpus Juris, a general statement, which statement is made without exception 'it is proper to consider' and I am quoting, 'the valuation of crops, trees, grass, etc., growing on the land, but they cannot be valued separately and apart from the value of the land' that is the end of the quotation. Now, of course, I feel that it might be a...