Georgia Power Co. v. Livingston, 38733
| Decision Date | 04 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 38733,No. 1,38733,1 |
| Parties | GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. J. C. LIVINGSTON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The alleged error complained of in ground 4 of the amended motion for a new trial will not likely recur on another trial of the case so the question raised will not be passed on.
2. A witness is not competent to give his opinion of the value of a house in which he had never been.
3. The mere possibility that land might be used for subdivision purposes is not sufficient to authorize a jury to consider subdivision use in determining the value of the land.
4(a). In this case the basis for determining the damage to the condemnor's land is fair market value.
(b) It was error for the court to charge the jury as to the value of land taken when nothing but an easement was sought to be condemned.
5. The court correctly charged as to consequential damages under the facts of this case.
The Georgia Power Co. sought to condemn an easement for the purpose of constructing power lines across the farm of the condemnee. The total area of the easement amounted to 6.75 acres from the defendant's 113 acre farm. On appeal by both parties the jury returned a verdict in favor of the condemnee in the amount of $1,626.75, for acquisition of the easement and $675 as consequential damages to the defendant's adjoining property. The condemnor filed its motion for a new trial on the general grounds and eight special grounds. The amended motion for a new trial was overruled, and the plaintiff excepts.
Robt. R. Forrester, A. L. Kelley, Jr., Tifton, for plaintiff in error.
Seymour S. Owens, Tifton, for defendant in error.
1. The first headnote needs no further discussion.
2. Ground 5 of the amended motion was properly overruled. The witness was not qualified to give an opinion as to the value of a house on the land involved when he had never been inside the house. The testimony was properly excluded notwithstanding the court may have assigned the wrong reason therefor.
3. Ground 6 of the amended motion complains that the court erred in permitting the condemnee to testify that 'it might be possible that it would be a subdivision out there.' One objection to this testimony was that it was speculative. We think the court erred in admitting this testimony. While it is too well known to require citation of authority that a jury may, in determining the value of land, consider all uses to which the property may reasonably be put, the mere possibility that it might be used for subdivision purposes is not enough to authorize a jury to consider the effect of such a possibility in determining the value of the land. At least a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Highway Dept. v. Rutland
...for determining the value of the land taken. Sutton v. State Hwy. Dept., 103 Ga.App. 29, 31, 118 S.E.2d 285; Georgia Power Co. v. Livingston, 103 Ga.App. 512, 514, 119 S.E.2d 802; State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst, 106 Ga.App. 532, 127 S.E.2d 501; State Hwy. Dept. v. Thomas, 106 Ga.App. 849, 8......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Thomas, 39681
...of such use is not sufficient to authorize the jury to consider subdivision use in determining the value. Georgia Power Co. v. Livingston, 103 Ga.App. 512, 513, 119 S.E.2d 802. 'Under proper evidence in determining just and adequate compensation for property taken by eminent domain, the jur......
-
Schoolcraft v. DeKalb County
...effect on the present value of the land. State Highway Dept. v. Howard, 119 Ga.App. 298, 303, 167 S.E.2d 177; Georgia Power Co. v. Livingston, 103 Ga.App. 512, 513, 119 S.E.2d 802. In the present case there was evidence that the land in question was nicely wooded and physically suited for r......
-
Skipper v. Department of Transp.
...and his personal observations. State Hwy. Dept. v. Thomas, 106 Ga.App. 849(2), 128 S.E.2d 520 (1962). Georgia Power Co. v. Livingston, 103 Ga.App. 512, 119 S.E.2d 802 (1961) is not controlling. See Thomas, supra, 106 Ga.App. at 851, 128 S.E.2d Appellant moved to strike Hicks' testimony beca......