Housing Authority of City of Atlanta v. Goolsby, 51132
| Decision Date | 30 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 51132,No. 3,51132,3 |
| Parties | HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF ATLANTA v. H. C. GOOLSBY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Charles L. Weltner, Atlanta, for appellant.
Joseph B. Tucker, Ringgold, for appellees.
1. This comdemnation case was first heard before a special master. The condemnee appealed to the superior court, and the comdemnor appeals from the jury verdict. The authority presented one witness, a real estate appraiser, at the conclusion of whose evidence counsel offered in evidence a blackboard, stating that it was 'a recapitulation of the testimony from the stand and we are dealing with some complicated figures and I know it is impossible to weigh in mind these circumstances, and each entry on both sides of this board was pursuant to testimony which I think it might be helpful to the jury if they had those computations.' The court properly excluded the evidence. 'The best evidence of the expert witness' opinion of the cost of reconstruction was his own testimony to that effect, not the worksheet which he had prepared in order to assist him in presenting the testimony.' Woodward v. City Council of Augusta, 117 Ga.App. 857, 162 S.E.2d 304. The same is true where the recapitulation is placed on a blackboard; to allow it in the jury room would give double emphasis to the testimony, which is the reason why depositions read into evidence are not sent out with demonstrative evidence.
2. None of the objections to testimony of the condemnee's expert witness shows reversible error. Knight, justifying his analysis of market value by comparable sales, stated: 'Nearby there was a sale at the corner of Piedmont and Inman Avenue, probably one block north of subject property and the Housing Authority bought this . . .' whereupon counsel objected that the testimony of condemnation by the agency was inadmissible, opposing counsel agreed, and the witness remarked: The court did not rule, no further ruling was invoked, and the witness proceeded to discuss another matter. There is nothing for this court to pass on. The next sale discussed was stated to be a city block in the same area to which the objection was made that it was not comparable in size and the court allowed the properties to be discussed on a square footage basis. The next enumeration apparently goes to a question asked by counsel for the appellant: 'That $18.00 (per square foot) figure was the highest figure paid in that assembly?' to which the witness replied, 'That was the highest figure I had up until you wouldn't let me report which sale was higher than that.' No objection was made to the answer and no error appears. Objections were made to statements of the 'putting together' of parcels and a lot of a little over an acre (the subject property being about .22 acre) which the witness cited as properties in the same area the recent sale price of which he had checked against his appraisal of the subject land. None of this testimony was subject to the error discussed in Fulton County v. Cox, 99 Ga.App. 743, 109 S.E.2d 849. Rarely does one find a piece of property exactly of the geographical position, use, size, improvements and sale date of the land being appraised. Literal adherence to such standards...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 63591
...99, 179 S.E.2d 552; State Highway Department v. Clark, et al., 123 Ga.App. 627(3), 181 S.E.2d 881; Housing Authority, City of Atlanta v. Goolsby, et al., 136 Ga.App. 156, 159, 220 S.E.2d 466. Compare State Highway Department v. Thomas, et al., 106 Ga.App. 849, 851(2), 128 S.E.2d 520; Depart......
-
Department of Transp. v. Lewyn, s. 66690
...were "replacement" expenses (i.e., capital expenditures) which had to be, but were not, depreciated. See Housing Auth. of Atlanta v. Goolsby, 136 Ga.App. 156(3), 220 S.E.2d 466. DOT also contends that to allow the lessee to recover "renovation" expenses at the new site would allow double co......
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Gottschalk
...with the jury over the objection of Gottschalk, which is enumerated as error. There was no error. In Housing Auth. of City of Atlanta v. Goolsby, 136 Ga.App. 156(1), 220 S.E.2d 466 (1975), a witness in a condemnation case wrote computations on a blackboard, which the condemnor tendered into......
-
Horton v. Georgia Power Co.
...S.E.2d 552 (1970), Housing Authority v. Savannah Iron & Wire Works, 91 Ga.App. 881, 87 S.E.2d 671 (1955) and Housing Authority v. Goolsby, 136 Ga.App. 156, 220 S.E.2d 466 (1975), relied upon by Horton, are inapposite. The two housing authority cases involve the measure of damages in condemn......
-
Business Associations - David A. Pope
...465 (1975). 70. Nolan Rd. W., Ltd., 274 Ga. at 743, 559 S.E.2d at 448 (quoting Farmers Hardware of Athens, Inc., 136 Ga. App. at 181, 220 S.E.2d at 466). 71. Id. 72. Id. at 742, 559 S.E.2d at 448. 73. Id. at 743, 559 S.E.2d at 449. 74. Id. 75. Id. 76. Id. (quoting Cox v. Strickland, 120 Ga.......