Gate City Terminal Co. v. Thrower

• Citation: 71 S.E. 903,136 Ga. 456
• Parties: GATE CITY TERMINAL CO. v. THROWER.
• Decision Date: 20 June 1911
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

71 S.E. 903

136 Ga. 456

GATE CITY TERMINAL CO. v. THROWER.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 20, 1911

Syllabus by the Court.

The motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied for the reasons set forth in the opinion.

Where on the day the award of assessors selected in condemnation proceedings was made, the condemning party pays or tenders the amount of the award to the owner of the property sought to be condemned and takes posssession of the property, on the trial of the case before a jury in the superior court on appeal from the award, the compensation the jury should find for the owner is the value of the property on the day of the award and interest thereon from that date.

If, at the time the market value of the property sought to be condemned was to be estimated, it was known or anticipated that certain improvements would be made in the locality where the property was situated, and this fact served to enhance the market value of the property, the owner would be entitled to the actual market value as affected by reason of the fact that it was known or anticipated that such improvements would thus be made. This is true, though the projected improvements were to be made by the condemning party.

There was no error requiring a new trial, and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. T. Pendleton, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the Gate City Terminal Company against M. L Thrower. From the award of damages Thrower appeals to the superior court, and from an order refusing a new trial after verdict, the Gate City Terminal Company brings error. Affirmed.

On August 14, 1906, the Gate City Terminal Company gave proper notice and began proceedings to condemn certain property. On September 1, 1906, the defendant in error, M. L. Thrower obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining these proceedings. One Bridwell also sought to enjoin proceedings by the same company to condemn his property. Both injunction proceedings involved the question as to whether the company had the right of eminent domain, and it was agreed that the injunction case begun by Thrower should abide the final judgment rendered in the case begun by Bridwell. It being finally decided by this court, on March 14, 1907, that the company had the right of condemnation, the restraining order obtained by Thrower was dissolved, after which the condemnation proceedings were carried on; and on April 20 1907, an award was made by the assessors, valuing the property at $6,000, which the company tendered or paid on April 20, 1907, and on that day took possession of the property. Thrower entered an appeal from the award, and on the trial in the superior court the jury rendered a verdict valuing the property at $8,500. To the order of the court refusing a new trial, the company excepted. The plaintiff in error (hereinafter called the plaintiff) introduced upon the trial of the case before the jury testimony in part substantially as follows: Miss Flynn sold the property to Mr. Crockett for $1,800. The deed from the former to the latter, dated April 15, 1905, reciting a consideration of $1,800, was introduced in evidence. Several witnesses testified that they examined the property after the condemnation proceedings were begun. One of them testified that he estimated its market value to be $3,645, and in making the estimate he "made an allowance of 100 per cent. on account of the prospect of the railroad terminals being located in that locality." Another witness testified that the market value of the property was $3,750. Another witness testified that its market value was between $3,500 and $5,000.

Thrower testified, in part, as follows: He bought the property in 1906 from Mr. Crockett. "At the time I bought the property, the railroad had graded out alongside of the property, and they had practically bought everything in the block, with the exception of this and the Volberg property, and I agreed to pay Mr. Crockett $14,000 for the property. It was my estimate it was railroad property when I bought it. I bought it as such. *** I agreed with Mr. Crockett, along the 1st of August or the latter part of July to give him $14,000 for it. I had the titles examined, and it was closed up some time the latter part of August, 1906. I bought the property before I knew of the condemnation proceedings. The agreement was made in July. *** When I bought the property from Mr. Crockett it was graded along the side, the 200-foot side, down to a depth of some 20 feet, up to the line of this property. After I bought the property I tried to sell it. In April, 1907, the market value of this property was $16,000 or $17,000, considering the railroad there. Excluding the railroad purposes makes a difference in the value of that property of about one-half, possibly a little more. The house rented for $25 a month. Putting it on a 4 per cent. basis it would be worth about $7,500; you have got to pay taxes out of that. *** He deeded me the property that is sought to be condemned after the condemnation proceedings about the latter part of August, the 27th I believe, 13 days after the condemnation proceedings started. *** At the time I bought the property I didn't think the Gate City Terminal Company could condemn it. I thought I could get a little profit from it, like I would on any other piece of property I bought. I had a notion that I could get a little more for it than I gave for it. I didn't have a notion that I could get my own price for it. *** When I bought I didn't know what they were going to do there. I know property went mighty high around the terminal station. *** If the railroad had not taken the property--if they had built freight or passenger terminals in there--you could have used it for manufacturing sites close to it, or for warehouse or hotel property; it is closer to the center of the city than the Aragon Hotel. If the railroad had come up to my property, but had not taken it, it would have been worth about $10,000."

E. Y Crockett testified: "I bought the property from Miss Flynn something like three years before April 15, 1905. I got my deed July or August of that year. I spent about $1,400 in improvements. *** I considered the market price was what I got for it--$14,000. *** I told Thrower that Adair was trying to buy this for the railroad." Geo. B. Saunders testified: In March, 1907, he thought the market value of the property was $15,000 or $16,000. It was worth $3,000 or $4,000 "before the contemplation of the railroad." John W. Alexander testified: "The depot is, I think, on a part of that lot now. *** Before the excitement about the railroad, I don't think this lot would have been worth over four or five thousand dollars. About the middle of August, 1906, I considered the lot worth twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars. I considered the lot worth twenty to twenty-five thousand dollars because it was there on the railroad--that near in town; it was expected to have a railroad front at that time. We knew pretty well where they were going to locate the railroad. The whole of my valuation is if it had a railroad front. If it didn't have a railroad front, it would not be that valuable; if the road was right near it would be worth $10,000." Fred J. Cooledge testified: "I think I knew what property was worth about August, 1906, that was after the railroad had bought nearly all of that property. The market value of the Thrower lot in August, 1906, was something like sixteen to eighteen thousand dollars. I got at that valuation by reason of the fact that the railroad owned right up to it, it had an alley coming up to the rear, and that was the key to the situation. I mean that the railroad had to have the alley to get into the property from back behind it. If the railroad didn't want that alley, they wouldn't have to take it. I should think that that property, before any railroad was contemplated there, would have brought in the neighborhood of $5,000." J. A. Bondurant testified: "In April, 1907, that property was worth sixteen or eighteen thousand dollars. Before the railroad entered that property was worth about $4,500, I think. Property went up as soon as they commenced building a terminal station around there, but it didn't go up like the property the railroad didn't take; it all went up pretty high. If the railroad had not built there, although the terminal station was built there, it would be worth $16,000. The terminal station has been built about five years. Property commenced going up from the time it was built. That piece of property was worth eight or ten thousand dollars after the terminal station went up. It was worth $4,500 before 1906." R. Blair Armstrong testified: "I was familiar with this piece of property owned by Mr. Thrower, formerly by Mr. Crockett, and with its market value in August, 1906. I think that piece was worth eight or nine thousand dollars. In the next twelve months the railroad had done a lot of grading, and I think they owned all but one piece of property around there, and that piece, and by that time I would say that piece was worth about $15,000, for Mr. Thrower held the key to the situation. That the railroad had to have that piece of property is one reason why it was the key to the situation; but it could have been used for a warehouse." Dr. De Los Hill testified: "I was familiar with my estimate of its market value in 1906, which is from $15,000 to $20,000. *** There was an excavation going on in the same block, I can't say just how close to that lot, but all around the lot on one side at least there was a hole in the ground, on one side of the lot, some feet away, leaving room to hold up the bank, and some feet between that bank and that lot. I thought it possible that the railroad...