Board of Com'rs of Fairfield County v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 09 October 1922
• Docket Number: 11023.
• Citation: 114 S.E. 632,122 S.C. 58
• Parties: BOARD OF COM'RS OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY v. RICHARDSON ET AL. BOARD OF COM'RS OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY v. GADSDEN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

114 S.E. 632

122 S.C. 58

BOARD OF COM'RS OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY v. RICHARDSON ET AL.

BOARD OF COM'RS OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY v. GADSDEN.

No. 11023.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 9, 1922

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Fairfield County; H. F Rice, Judge.

Separate condemnation proceedings by the Board of County Commissioners of Fairfield County against E. A. Richardson and F. M Gadsden. The landowners appeal to the circuit court, where a judgment for increased damages was rendered in their favor and the Commissioners appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Fraser J., dissenting.

W. D. Douglas, of Winnsboro, for appellants.

McDonald & McDonald, of Winnsboro, for respondents.

COTHRAN J.

The board of county commissioners of Fairfield county, in carrying out certain alterations and improvements in a public highway, instituted separate condemnation proceedings against Richardson and Gadsden. In the Richardson case they condemned the top soil upon eight acres of land planted in cotton and a strip of land for a slight change of the highway. The hearing was had on July 28, 1921, and by resolution of the board the compensation for both top soil and strip of land was fixed at $109.

In the Gadsden case they condemned the top soil upon four acres of land planted in cotton. The hearing was had on August 15, 1921, and by resolution of the board the compensation was fixed at $129. Both landowners appealed to the circuit court, where the question of compensation was tried de novo. Both cases, it appears, were tried together by Judge Rice and a jury. The verdict in the Richardson case was $275, and in the Gadsden case $300. The commissioners have appealed, and the two appeals were heard together in this court.

It appeared that the market price of cotton on July 28, 1921, the date of Richardson's condemnation, was 10 cents per pound, that on August 15, 1921, the date of the Gadsden condemnation, it was 12 cents, and that at the time of the trial of the cases in the circuit court it had risen to 21 cents. The county commissioners contended that the market value at the time of the condemnation must be taken as the measure of damages for the cultivation of the unmatured crop of cotton, while the owners contended that the market value at the time of trial was the true criterion. The circuit judge held with the owners, and that is the main issue in the two cases. A question arises in the Richardson case not common to the Gadsden case which will be considered later.

It is conceded that as soon as the board of county commissioners, by resolution as provided in section 1933, vol. 1, Code of Laws A. D. 1912, fixed the amount of compensation and damages to which the owner was entitled, they went into possession of the condemned property. That determined when the taking occurred, and fixed the point at which damages should be assessed. The value of the owner's property which was destroyed, "taken," as of that date is the measure of compensation and damages. The fact that an appeal lies to the circuit court and a trial de novo had upon that issue cannot change the period at which the estimate is to be made. That has already been fixed and cannot be changed by the accidental rise or fall in the market price of the property destroyed.

In the case of growing unmatured crops destroyed, at any period of their existence, at any stage of development, the criterion is to ascertain: (1) What would reasonably have been produced but...