Herndon v. Pulaski County

Decision Date30 May 1938
Docket Number4-4955
PartiesHERNDON v. PULASKI COUNTY
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Richard M. Mann Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Will G Akers, for appellant.

Fred A Donham and Henry E. Spitzberg, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

On July 18, 1935, the county court of Pulaski county, upon the petition of the State Highway Commission, made an order changing the route of the state highway commonly known as the Sweet Home Connection Road. The change made in the location of the road, as it affected the lands of Mrs. E. C. Herndon, was very exactly defined in the order of condemnation. Pursuant to this order the State Highway Commission located a new hard-surfaced road which replaced a gravel road which had formerly served that community. Mrs. Herndon filed a claim for the damages to her land, which was disallowed by the county court, from which order of disallowance she appealed to the circuit court, where the question of her damages was submitted to a jury, and from the judgment of the circuit court finding that the damages for the land taken had been offset by the benefits to the remainder is this appeal.

Testimony was offered by Mrs. Herndon showing the value of the land taken in the construction of the new road, which had severed a small portion of the land from the main body thereof. She offered testimony to the effect that by reason of the fact that the road curved upon entering her land it was thereby rendered less adaptable to subdivision into building and small acreage lots. Testimony was also offered as to the value of certain timber destroyed.

These were all recoverable elements of damage, as the circuit court charged the jury in an instruction given at the plaintiff's request reading as follows: "No. II. The measure of plaintiff's damages, if any, is the difference between the fair market value of her lands, if any immediately before the construction of the new highway, and the fair market value thereof immediately after such construction. By the term 'fair market value' is not meant the price a given piece of land will bring at a forced sale, but the price it would bring from a willing purchaser after the owner has had a reasonable time within which to find a purchaser willing and able to buy. In determining the damage, if any, caused plaintiff by the construction of the highway in question, you are to take into consideration the fair market value, if any, of the quantity of land, if any, embraced in the highway right-of-way, the damage, if any, caused by the division of the lands into more than one parcel; the damage, if any, caused by the change of the flow of water, if any, onto or over said lands; the added inconvenience and hazard, if any, of occupying and using said lands or any part thereof caused by the construction of the new highway; the maximum value of the lands for any use to which they could reasonably...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Union Planters Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1960
    ...of the portion remaining after the appropriation. Pulaski County v. Horton, 1955, 224 Ark. 864, 276 S.W.2d 706; Herndon v. Pulaski County, 1938, 196 Ark. 284, 117 S.W.2d 1051; Newport Levee District v. Price, 1921, 148 Ark. 122, 229 S.W. 'In spelling out this rule we said in Little Rock, Mi......
  • Board of Directors, St. Francis Levee Dist. v. Morledge, s. 1949-1954
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1960
    ...There are many cases to like effect. We cite only a few: Newport Levee Dist. v. Price, 148 Ark. 122, 229 S.W. 12; Herndon v. Pulaski County, 196 Ark. 284, 117 S.W.2d 1051; Pulaski County v. Horton, 224 Ark. 864, 276 S.W.2d 706; Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Fox, Ark., 322 S.W.2d 81. ......
  • Gradison v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 14, 1973
    ...notwithstanding that some or all of the other property adjacent to the improvement is also benefited. In Herndon v. Pulaski County (1938), 196 Ark. 284, 117 S.W.2d 1051, certiorari denied 305 U.S. 642, 59 S.Ct. 148, 83 L.Ed. 414, it was held that where other owners, no portion of whose land......
  • Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Davis
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1968
    ...owner from the completed highway, i.e., a benefit from the improvement. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 76--521 (Repl.1957); Herndon v. Pulaski County, 196 Ark. 284, 117 S.W.2d 1051. Also, the value of the dirt on this 18 acres was not occasioned by the fact that a part of Davis' lands was condemned; if th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT