Longino v. City of Atlanta, 47352
| Decision Date | 19 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 47352,No. 1,47352,1 |
| Citation | 193 S.E.2d 190,127 Ga.App. 299 |
| Parties | Joseph W. LONGINO et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alex McLennan, Atlanta, for appellants.
Henry L. Bowden, Edwin L. Sterne, Alton H. Hopkins, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Condemnees appeal from the judgment of the Fulton Superior Court awarding title to condemnees' property to the City of Atlanta and assign as error the trial court's excluding the testimony of condemnees' witness, Eugene Starr. The record shows Mr. Starr to be an expert in making evaluations of real estate, and indicates that the trial court so found but excluded his testimony on the ground that the witness had no basis on which to testify as to the value of the tract being condemned in College Park, Georgia.
The witness testified in general that he had developed a 188-lot subdivision in which he lived in East Point, which was completed in 1961; that he had opened another 55-house subdivision near Greenbriar Shopping Center; that he had built apartments and duplexes; that he was President of Continental Development Corporation, a real estate development and building corporation; that he owned property in, and was familiar with, College Park; that he was familiar with the tract in question and had been for a number of years; that it was one of the best locations, and the only good location, for a small shopping center in College Park; that he was familiar with the sale of other property near the condemnees' property and was able to show distinguishing differences in value; and that he thought he had enough knowledge of property and real estate to arrive at a fair value.
The record is unclear as to whether the trial judge found the witness to be an expert, but shows that the trial judge excluded the witness's testimony on the value of the condemnees' property on the basis of there being an insufficient foundation on which the same could be based. The evidence above noted shows the witness to have been sufficiently qualified to give his opinion on the value of the condemned property as an expert. While the qualification of a witness as an expert by reason of his learning, skill and experience, is generally left to the discretion of the trial judge, American Fire &c. Co. v. Grizzle, 108 Ga.App. 496, 498, 133 S.E.2d 400 and cit., this is not an arbitrary discretion. A person need not be a licensed real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dimambro Northend Associates v. Williams
...Mr. Elliott's direct testimony on the basis that his cross examination demonstrated a lack of expertise. See Longino v. City of Atlanta, 127 Ga.App. 299, 193 S.E.2d 190 (1972). Accordingly, although it was procedural error to refuse to allow appellant to conduct a preliminary cross-examinat......
-
Wilson v. Wilson
...or salesman to qualify as" an expert sufficiently qualified to give his opinion on the value of property. Longino v. City of Atlanta, 127 Ga.App. 299, 300, 193 S.E.2d 190 (1972). On retrial, therefore, the trial court should not exclude the witness' testimony on the basis that he is not a l......
-
Reed v. City of Atlanta, No. 51044
...easements than perhaps any of the other appraisers in town.' We find no error in the ruling of the trial court. Longino v. Atlanta, 127 Ga.App. 299, 300, 193 S.E.2d 190; State Hwy. Dept. v. Raines, 129 Ga.App. 123(1), 199 S.E.2d 3. We will consider the third, fifth and sixth enumerations of......
-
Morrison v. Koornick
...opinion fails because this would go to the testimony's weight rather than its admissibility. See, e.g., Longino v. City of Atlanta, 127 Ga.App. 299, 300, 193 S.E.2d 190 (1972), which applies the principle in the context of opinion as to market value of real As to the third, the impact of th......