Martin v. Newton County

Decision Date04 October 1965
Docket NumberNo. 5-3633,5-3633
Citation239 Ark. 769,394 S.W.2d 133
PartiesVirgil MARTIN and Margie Martin, Appellants, v. NEWTON COUNTY, Roy Raulston, County Judge, Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Edward H. Patterson, Clarksville, for appellants.

Carl S. Whillock, Clinton, for appellee.

ROBINSON, Justice.

Appellants filed a claim in the sum of $400 against Newton County for about one acre of land taken by the county to improve a public road adjacent to appellants' property. The claim was denied by the County Court; appellants appealed to the Circuit Court. There, after appellants had rested their case, the trial court directed a verdict for the county. The landowners have appealed to this court.

Two witnesses testified in the case. First, the appellant, Virgil Martin, testified that about one acre had been taken to improve the road, and, in his opinion, the particular acre taken was worth $500. He testified, however, on cross-examination, that there was some enhancement in value to the property remaining to him which was caused by the improvement in the road, When asked whether, in his opinion, the remainder was worth less than the entire property was worth before the taking, he answered: 'No, I didn't say it was worth less.'

One other witness testified, and his testimony can be construed to the effect that the part of the property remaining after the taking was worth more than the entire property was worth before the taking, and that the enhanced value was due to the improvement of the road. In this state of the record the trial court directed a verdict for the county.

Ark.Stat.Ann. § 76-521 (Repl.1957) provides: '* * * any court or jury considering claims for right-of-way damages shall deduct from the value of any land taken for a right-of-way the benefits of said State highway to the remaining lands of the owner.'

We have held that under the foregoing statute, the landowner, is not entitled to recover anything for the taking of a part of his property to improve a road where the remainder of land left to him is enhanced in value in an amount equal to or greater than the value of that part taken. Bridgman v. Baxter County, 202 Ark. 15, 148 S.W.2d 673; Herndon v. Pulaski County, 196 Ark. 284, 117 S.W.2d 1051. Here, the trial court was of the opinion that the undisputed evidence showed there was such an enhancement in value.

But, there is another point to be considered. The landowner is precluded from recovering only where the enhancement in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Welter
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 18 Octubre 1971 against both severance damages and the value of the land actually taken. See Ark.Stat.Ann. § 76--521 (Repl.1957); Martin v. Raulston, 239 Ark. 769, 394 S.W.2d 133; Washa v. Prairie County, 186 Ark. 530, 54 S.W.2d 686; Cullum v. Van Buren County, 223 Ark. 525, 267 S.W.2d 14; Herndon v. P......
  • City of Springdale v. Keicher
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 9 Octubre 1967
    ...and did not likewise benefit other property as well. McMahan v. Carroll County, 238 Ark. 812, 384 S.W.2d 488, and Martin v. Raulston, 239 Ark. 769, 394 S.W.2d 133. FOGLEMAN, BROWN and JONES, JJ., dissent. FOGLEMAN, Justice. I cannot agree that the judgment should be affirmed in this case. I......
  • Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Hambuchen
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 15 Enero 1968
    ...were of a special and peculiar nature, not shared by the general public. We have so held; so there was no error. Martin v. Raulston, 239 Ark. 769, 394 S.W.2d 133 (1965). BYRD, J., dissents. ...

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