Elliott v. Fulton County
| Decision Date | 05 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 22594,22594 |
| Citation | 139 S.E.2d 312,220 Ga. 377 |
| Parties | Edwin B. ELLIOTT, Executor, et al. v. FULTON COUNTY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where, as here, in the trial of a condemnation of the fee where the testimony fixed a value of the whole tract and then the value of the land remaining as of the day of the taking, it was not error to charge the jury to determine the value of the land taken by determining the value of the whole tract and the value of the land left, and the difference would represent the value of the land taken, where in the charge immediately following the court charged the jury to find consequential damages, if any, which naturally flowed from the taking, use, maintenance, etc., of the land taken. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the charge was error.
This case is here for review upon the grant of the writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fulton County v. Elliott, 109 Ga.App. 775, 137 S.E.2d 477, to determine whether or not that court erred in reversing the trial court in charging the jury that in finding the value of the property taken for public use, to find the market value, from the evidence, of the whole tract owned by the defendant just before and the remaining tract after the land had been taken for highway purposes, if the evidence discloses it, and the difference, if any, would be the value of the land actually taken. In reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeals held that consequential damages or benefits may immediately accrue to the remaining property without regard to later consequential damages or benefits. This is the sole assignment of error which will be considered here.
Jones, Bird & Howell, Earle B. May, Jr., and Robert L. Foreman, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Harold Sheats, T. Charles Allen and George Gillon, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The excerpt from the charge which the Court of Appeals held to be reversible error instructed the jury that to determine the value of the land taken they should first find the value of the entire tract, then the value of what remained after the taking, and the whole value less the value of the remainder would represent the value of the land taken. Thus a construction of that excerpt will determine if that court erred. This requires an examination of both the excerpt and the relevant portions of the entire charge. It is never permissible to mutilate an entire charge by lifting therefrom an excerpt and construe it independently of other portions of the same charge. Fletcher v. State, 90 Ga. 468, 470, 17 S.E. 100; Norman v. Georgia Loan & Trust Co., 92 Ga. 295, 18 S.E. 27; Suple v. State, 133 Ga. 601(1), 66 S.E. 919; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Cole, 135 Ga. 72(2), 68 S.E. 804; City Council of Augusta v. Tharpe, 113 Ga. 152(2), 38 S.E. 389; Cooper v. State 212 Ga. 367, 92 S.E.2d 864. The first sentence of the excerpt here involved plainly states the compensation which the owners are entitled to for the land actually taken is the value of the land taken. In this manner the remainder of the excerpt is twice restricted to a finding of the value of the land taken. With the jury's finding thus limited to the value of the land taken, it proceeds to instruct them how to determine this single question as follows: (Italics ours). With the jury thus directed to find only the value of the land taken, and no mention of consequential damages, which is fully discussed in the immediately following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
...(Code Ann. § 2-301). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the basis of this court's opinion in Elliott v. Fulton County, 220 Ga. 377, 381, 139 S.E.2d 312 (1964), but went on to say: "Nonetheless, we feel compelled to express our view that the subject charge is vulnerable to appe......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Rutland
...Ga.App. 320, 97 S.E.2d 785; Fulton County v. Elliott, 109 Ga.App. 775, 777, 137 S.E.2d 477, reversed on other grounds Elliott v. Fulton County, 220 Ga. 377, 139 S.E.2d 312. But to admit evidence of the sales price of property in no way similar or comparable to the property being condemned i......
-
Department of Transp. v. Gunnels, 70045
...charge is based upon language which appears in State Hwy. Bd. v. Bridges, 60 Ga.App. 240, 241(2), 3 S.E.2d 907. In Elliott v. Fulton County, 220 Ga. 377, 381, 139 S.E.2d 312, our Supreme Court determined that Bridges enunciated "a correct rule." The Bridges case, supra, in discussing a work......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Noble
...418 ,521(5), 136 S.E.2d 544; Fulton County v. Elliott, 109 Ga.App. 775, 137 S.E.2d 477, reversed on other grounds in Elliott v. Fulton County, 220 Ga. 377, 139 S.E.2d 312; Schrimsher v. State Highway Department, 110 Ga.App. 705, 707(1), 140 S.E.2d 64. But where, as here, the difference in v......