Georgia Power Co. v. Carson

• Decision Date: 24 February 1933
• Docket Number: 22508.
• Citation: 167 S.E. 902,46 Ga.App. 612
• Parties: GEORGIA POWER CO. v. CARSON et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

167 S.E. 902

46 Ga.App. 612

GEORGIA POWER CO. v. CARSON et al.

No. 22508.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

February 24, 1933

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Where sole issue was value of easement condemned, and consequential damages to remaining land from backing of water, charge excluding recovery for unhealthy conditions held not erroneous because not excluding consideration of evidence regarding remote or speculative damages.

Charge was not erroneous because failing to instruct that jury should not consider evidence concerning remote or speculative damages, since the condemnee asserted no claim for remote or speculative damages, and the only possible evidence as to such damage was that the remaining portion of the tract would be in an unhealthy condition after water had been backed upon the land, and since the only issue the charge submitted to the jury was as to the value of the easement and the consequential damages to the remaining portion of the tract.

Charge referring to condemnor's acquisition of easement as "taking" of land held not prejudicial to condemnor.

In condemnation proceeding, absent evidence of consequential benefits, failure to charge what constituted consequential benefits held not error.

In arriving at value of condemned land, its prospective value for any purpose may be considered.

In condemnation proceeding, evidence that condemnee's land combined with condemnor's adjoining land, had value for power reservoir, held admissible.

In power company's proceeding to condemn easement, testimony regarding depth of lake which would form after water had ponded upon condemnee's property held admissible.

Condemnee's testimony regarding what he considered his land worth held not inadmissible as evidence regarding value of land to condemnee, but competent as opinion regarding land's market value.

Error from Superior Court, Baldwin County; Jas. B. Park, Judge.

Condemnation proceeding by the Georgia Power Company against E. C. Carson and others. To review the judgment, condemnor brings error.

Affirmed.

Frank W. Bell and Sibley & Allen, all of Milledgeville, Colquitt Parker, Troutman & Arkwright, of Atlanta, and Roberts & Roberts, of Monroe, for plaintiff in error.

Marion Ennis and Carlisle Giles, both of Milledgeville, and Sam Kimzey, of Cornelia, for defendants in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

STEPHENS Judge.

1. On the trial of an issue arising out of a proceeding instituted by an electric power company, having the power of eminent domain, to condemn an easement in another's land which would give the power company the right to back water from a dam upon a portion of a tract of land belonging to the condemnee, where the only issue presented under the pleadings and the evidence is the value of the easement and the consequential damage to the remaining portion of the tract and the court, in the charge to the jury, submits this issue only, and the condemnee asserts no claim for remote or speculative damages, and the only possible evidence as to such damage being that the remaining portion of the tract would be in an unhealthy condition after water had been backed upon the land,...