Georgia Power Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 09 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36130,No. 1,36130,1 |
| Citation | 94 S.E.2d 48,94 Ga.App. 166 |
| Parties | GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. Calvin SMITH et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The trial judge did not err in denying the motion for new trial.
Georgia Power Company instituted proceedings to condemn an easement 2,150 feet long and 50 feet wide over land owned by Calvin Smith and Etta Smith for the purpose pose of installing a power line across such property. Assessors were appointed and made an award of $397 for the easement taken. Calvin Smith and Etta Smith appealed from the award, and on trial of the appeal the jury returned a verdict in their favor for $3,225. Georgia Power Company filed a motion for new trial which was denied. Exception is made to this ruling.
Erwin, Nix, Birchmore & Epting, Athens, Marvin D. Pierce, Jr., Winder, for plaintiff in error.
Stephens, Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, Edwin Fortson, Jas. W. Arnold, Athens, for defendant in error.
1. We consider first the general grounds of the motion. The condemner earnestly insists that the verdict was without evidence to support it. In a case where the power of eminent domain is exercised, the burden is on the condemner to show the value of the property taken and the consequential damages to the remainder of the property. Where a verdict is returned for an amount larger than is authorized by the evidence adduced by the condemner, that of the condemnee must support the verdict; that is, the condemnee's proof, added to and supplemented by facts appearing from that of the condemner for that purpose must furnish the factual foundation for the verdict rendered by the jury. From the composite of all the facts related and the opinions given by the witnesses the jury may properly predicate a verdict representing their own opinion. While some, though not all, of the condemnees' witnesses who gave their opinions as to the value of the strip of land taken and the consequential damage to the remaining tract undertook to testify as to the market value of the entire tract, their evidence taken as a whole supported the verdict.
It is contended by the condemner that the testimony of the condemnees' witnesses did not have probative value because the witnesses estimated the value of the property condemned by the lineal foot. We see no difficulty in the witnesses' forming their opinions in this manner. The same estimated value of the entire strip of land condemned would be arrived at whether the witnesses simply stated that value or broke it down into the worth of the land by lineal foot.
The condemner also contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict because the witnesses did not testify as to the market value of the whole Smith farm. There was evidence that the property as a whole would be less desirable for a home on account of the strip of land being taken by the condemner. The reduction in its value was variously estimated by several witnesses. Moreover, if there had been no evidence of consequential damages, the jury, if they believed the condemnees' witnesses as to the value of the strip of land actually taken, were authorized by the evidence to find the verdict returned.
2. The condemner argues in his general grounds that the verdict was excessive. 'The general grounds of a motion for new trial do not raise the question of excessiveness of a verdict, and where there is no specific ground in the motion that the verdict is excessive, such question is not before this court.' McFarland v. Bradley, 82 Ga.App. 223(4), 60 S.E.2d 498, 501.
3. Special grounds 4 and 5 of the amended motion for new trial assign error upon the following charge: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PENDARVIS CONST., CORP. v. Cobb County-Marietta Water Auth., A99A0346.
...of showing" instead of "burden of proving," we conclude the two are confusingly similar in this setting. In Ga. Power Co. v. Smith, 94 Ga.App. 166(1), 94 S.E.2d 48 (1956), the court explained the difference between the burdens on the parties in a condemnation action, and in so doing said, "......
-
DeKalb County v. Daniels, 69111
...authority in an ordinary condemnation proceeding has the burden of proving the value of the property taken (Ga. Power Co. v. Smith, 94 Ga.App. 166(3), 94 S.E.2d 48 (1956) ), in a case such as this one, where the landowner is the plaintiff, the landowner has the burden of proving his damages......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Smith
...Shierling, 51 Ga.App. 935, 936(3), 181 S.E. 885; Andrus v. State Highway Dept., 93 Ga.App. 827, 93 S.E.2d 174; Georgia Power Co. v. Smith, 94 Ga.App. 166, 167(3), 94 S.E.2d 48; Georgia Power Co. v. Brooks, 207 Ga. 406(4), 62 S.E.2d 183. 5. When each case sub judice was before the superior c......
-
Parker v. Armstrong, 2078
...refused. See also Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Treas, 197 Miss. 670, 20 So.2d 475. In the case of Georgia Power Company v. Smith, 94 Ga.App. 166, 94 S.E.2d 48, 49, the appellant complained of the following '* * * 'I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that in this case the burden ......