Central Georgia Power Co. v. Stone

• Citation: 77 S.E. 565,139 Ga. 416
• Parties: CENTRAL GEORGIA POWER CO. v. STONE.
• Decision Date: 12 February 1913
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

77 S.E. 565

139 Ga. 416

CENTRAL GEORGIA POWER CO. v. STONE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 12, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

After a witness has given his opinion of the value of land which it was claimed would be subject to consequential damages by reason of condemning another part of the tract, and stated that the pond created by the condemnor caused injury to the balance of the land, there was no error in permitting him to give his opinion that the value of the balance would be decreased $20 an acre.

(a) Inaccessibility to market fro the balance of a farm resulting from condemning a part of it and flooding it with water, is a legitimate subject of consideration by a witness in estimating the decreased market value of the part not taken.

A mere disconnected statement of the husband of the owner of land sought to be condemned that he had been offered $100 an acre for it 20 years before would not be admissible.

(a) Such statement appears to have been made on cross-examination, and is part of the sentence, "I told you up there that I was offered $100 an acre far that bottom land 20 years ago." If the evidence was drawn out by counsel for movant in the motion for a new trial, it would furnish no ground for reversal.

Where a witness testified to his familiarity with the land, a part of which was sought to be condemned, that he had seen the crops growing on it, and that the bottom land was fertile and easily irrigated, and gave his opinion that it was worth $200 per acre, there was no error in refusing to rule out the estimate because, on cross-examination, he testified that he never bought any land "up that way"; that the price of land differed in different communities; that he did not know the value of land in that particular community; that he was farming in the edge of an adjoining county, and "sorter dabbled in real estate around here"; and that he had never seen or heard of any one paying $200 per acre in that community (stating on redirect examination that he did not know of any sales which had taken place "up there"). Such facts, elicited on cross-examination, went to the credit to be given to the evidence rather than to its admissibility.

Where a witness testified that he had been acquainted with certain land for about 40 years, had lived in about seven miles of it, had been upon it and seen it in cultivation, and that he had knowledge of the land and was acquainted with its market value, and that, on account of his knowledge of lands in the county and acquaintance with them as a farmer, he considered himself competent to give an opinion of the market value, his opinion was admissible, although he also stated that he could not say positively that he knew the market value of land in that section, that he had known of only two pieces being sold in 20 years, and that he had been on the tract of land about 2 years previously, but had not seen the particular part of it sought to be condemned in 4 or 5 years.

In a proceeding to condemn certain land for use as a part of a reservoir by a company intending to produce electric power and lights, a witness offered as an expert by the landowner testified that the water power belonging to the owner was worth $2,500. On cross-examination the witness testified that the stream which ran along the property had a fall of but a foot and a half within the boundaries of the tract, and that no dam could be there erected or water power utilized, but that he based his estimate upon a calculation or opinion that the condemnor or some other person could build a dam some distance further down the stream (at the point where the condemnor was actually proceeding to do so), and could erect buildings, provide machinery, and operate the works at a certain estimated cost, and could produce a certain horse power of an estimated value; that the volume and flow of water passing along the edge of the land sought to be condemned could produce a certain horse power, which compared with the total horse power produced at the dam would make the water power of the landowner worth a sum stated. Held, that such estimate of value was founded on an improper basis, and should have been excluded from evidence, on motion.

(a) The estimate of another witness, offered by the landowner as an expert, that the land taken was worth a certain sum per acre which was shown to rest on a similar basis, should also have been excluded on motion.

The error in the admission of this evidence also affected the charge, and certain portions of it apparently depended upon this evidence. There was also some inaccuracy in expression in portions of the charge, to which exception was taken.

Error from Superior Court, Jasper County; J. B. Park, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the Central Georgia Power Company against Mrs. B. J. Stone. From the judgment, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Walter T. Johnson, of Macon, Greene F. Johnson, of Monticello, and Hatcher & Smith, of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

W. S. Florence, of Monticello, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN J.

The Central Georgia Power Company proceeded to condemn certain land belonging to Mrs. B. J. Stone, for the purpose of flooding the same in connection with its power plant for the generating of electricity by water. From the award of the assessors an appeal was entered by the landowner. The jury found in her favor $2,953.53. The condemnor moved for a new trial, which was denied, and it excepted.

1-4. The first four headnotes are self-explanatory.

5. Two witnesses were sworn as experts. One of them stated that, in his opinion, the market value of the landowner's water power capable of being developed, taking into consideration the fall, the volume, and the speed of the stream, and that she owned a half interest--that is to the thread of the stream--was $2,500. The other testified that, in his opinion taking into consideration that the property to be taken would be covered by water from 10 to 20 feet deep, and considering its adaptability for water power or reservoir purposes, it was worth $175 to $225 per acre. On cross-examination of these witnesses, it appeared that the Ocmulgee river ran along the land to be taken for some little distance, and in that space had a fall of a foot and a half, and that no dam could be built at that point, and no water power developed there. The basis on which they formed their estimates of value was, in effect, that a dam could be built several miles further down the stream, at a point where the condemnor's dam was located; that an estimated number of horse power could be there developed, which ought to be worth a certain sum per horse power; that, considering the quantity of water which ran by the property of the owner, and the fall of a foot and a half, this would produce a given horse power, and hence its proportion of the entire horse power produced at the dam would be a stated per cent. or fraction, and therefore the value of the water power on the land could be...