Housing Authority of City of Dublin v. Curry Realty Co.

• Decision Date: 16 July 1952
• Docket Number: No. 34143,No. 2,34143,2
• Citation: 86 Ga.App. 527,71 S.E.2d 898
• Parties: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DUBLIN v. CURRY REALTY CO., Inc
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 898

71 S.E.2d 898

86 Ga.App. 527

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DUBLIN v. CURRY REALTY CO., Inc.

No. 34143.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

July 16, 1952.

Dawson Kea, Lester F. Watson, Dublin, for plaintiff in error.

Emory L. Rowland, Joe W. Rowland, Wrightsville, H. Dale Thompson, Dublin, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GARDNER, Presiding Judge.

1. The plaintiff, the Housing Authority of the City of Dublin, is the plaintiff in error here. The defendant, the Curry Realty Company, Inc., is the defendant in error here. The proceedings were brought for condemnation of specified real estate. It is concluded that the only issue submitted in the court below and the only question here for determination concerns the value of the property. The jury returned a verdict for $1,000 in favor of the defendant. A motion for a new trial was duly filed on the general grounds and thereafter four special grounds were added by amendment. The general grounds are not argued and are, therefore, considered abandoned.

Special ground one assigns error upon the admission of testimony as to improvements contemplated by the plaintiff. Special ground two is to the same general effect. Special ground three assigns error upon an excerpt from the charge of the court. Special ground for assigns error upon the failure of the court to charge more specifically as to the law which should govern the jury in arriving at the value of the property involved. All of these grounds are based on the contention that the court illegally admitted, over objections, certain testimony to the effect that plaintiff intended to improve the property by building houses thereon under the provisions of the act creating the Housing Authority Law (Ga.L. 1937, pp. 210-230 Publisher's Pocket Ed. to Ann.Code of 1933, § 99-1101 et seq.). In support of the contentions in special grounds one and two our attention is called to Gate City Terminal Co. v. Thrower, 136 Ga. 456(2), 71 S.E. 903; Georgia Power Co. v. Carson, 46 Ga.App. 612, 167 S.E. 902; Brooks County v. Elwell, 63 Ga.App. 308-313, 11 S.E.2d 82; Housing Authority of Augusta v. Holloway, 63 Ga.App. 485, 486, 11 S.E.2d 418, and Campbell v. Metropolitan State Ry. Co., 82 Ga. 320, 9 S.E. 1078. It is contended that the authorities sustain the contentions for reversal on special grounds one and two. We do not think so. According to our view, these decisions are contrary to such contentions. There is no authority cited...