Malvern & Ouachita River Railroad Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 21 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | 288 |
| Citation | 26 S.W.2d 1107,181 Ark. 626 |
| Parties | MALVERN & OUACHITA RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY v. SMITH |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; Thomas E. Toler, Judge affirmed if remittitur is entered.
Judgment affirmed.
H. B Means and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant.
John L McClellan and Andrew I. Roland, for appellee.
The appellant railroad company, which is building a short line railroad for the purpose of hauling gravel, sought to condemn a right-of-way through lands owned by appellee, and, the parties being unable to agree as to the amount of damages to be paid, a petition for condemnation was filed in the circuit court of the county in which the lands are located. In this petition it is alleged that the railroad company has laid out its line across the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter and the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 21, township 4 south, range 17 west, and a three and one-half acre tract joining it, and it is the right-of-way through these lands which the railroad seeks to condemn.
The testimony heard at the trial, from which this appeal comes, is to the effect that appellee owned, including the land above-described, about 100 acres of land in section 21, township 4 south, range 17 west, and that the line of the railroad ran for about half a mile through his property, leaving about the same number of acres on each side, and that the amount of land actually taken was about 3.6 acres.
There was a verdict and judgment in the sum of $ 3,000, and for the reversal of this judgment it is insisted that error was committed in permitting witnesses to "express an opinion as to what the damages were without stating the facts upon which the opinion was based," and that the verdict was excessive.
We think no error was committed in permitting the witnesses to express their opinion, where it was shown that they had some knowledge of the facts about which they testified. The measure of damages in such cases is, of course, the difference in value of the land before and after the construction of the railroad, excluding any enhancement of value by the building of the railroad, and in the very nature of the case this is largely a matter of opinion, and whether a witness has such knowledge of the facts as to make his opinion of any value is a question largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and the value of such testimony may be tested by a cross-examination of the witness as to the facts upon which the opinion is based St. Louis, A. & T. R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 39 Ark. 167; Texas & St. L. Ry. v. Kirby, 44 Ark. 103, 106. We find no error in this respect.
We have concluded, however, that the verdict was excessive....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of St. Louis v. Paramount Shoe Mfg. Co.
... ... Maloney, 234 N.Y. 208, 137 ... N.E. 305, 308; Railroad v. Knapp-Stout & Co., 160 ... Mo. 396; Pause v. Atlanta, ... Berry, 222 Ala. 20, ... 130 So. 541, 544; Malvern & Ouachita River R. R. v ... Smith, 181 Ark. 626, 26 ... ...
-
City of St. Louis v. Paramount Shoe Mfg. Co. et al.
...Commission, 223 Iowa, 159, 271 N.W. 883; Alabama Power Company v. Berry, 222 Ala. 20, 130 So. 541, 544; Malvern & Ouachita River R.R. v. Smith, 181 Ark. 626, 26 S.W. (2d) 1107. (f) It is axiomatic that the respondent cannot appraise the damages for the present property taken and then add to......
-
Schaefer v. Baker
... ... ... SMITH, ... Isaac ... J. Brittingham and Mary, ... ...
-
City of Springdale v. Keicher
...landowners is substantial when cross-examination reveals that it is not based on a fair and reasonable basis. Malvern & Ouachita River R. Co. v. Smith, 181 Ark. 626, 26 S.W.2d 1107; City of Harrison v. Moss, 213 Ark. 721, 212 S.W.2d 334; State Highway Comm. v. Byars, 221 Ark. 845, 256 S.W.2......