Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Emerson

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: M. Darwin Kirk; IRWIN
• Citation: Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Emerson, 377 P.2d 565 (Okla. 1962)
• Decision Date: 02 October 1962
• Docket Number: MID-CONTINENT,No. 39749,39749
• Parties: PIPE LINE COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Verna EMERSON and Olna Emerson, Wife and Husband, Defendants in Error.

Page 565

377 P.2d 565

1962 OK 206

MID-CONTINENT PIPE LINE COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Verna EMERSON and Olna Emerson, Wife and Husband, Defendants in Error.

No. 39749.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 2, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1962.

Application to File Second Petition for Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1963.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a part only of a tract of land is condemned and damages are sought for the value of that taken, and damages to that not taken, the measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the whole property immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the portion left immediately after the taking.

2. It is not error to exclude evidence of a witness of his estimate of the amount of damages in a condemnation proceeding. This question is one for the jury. The evidence should be as to the value of the land immediately before and immediately after the taking.

3. Where a condemnor of a pipe line right of way easement pays into the office of the court clerk for the benefit of the condemnee, the damages as fixed by the commissioners, and enters into possession of the pipe line right of way easement and subjects the same to the purposes for which it was condemned, the condemnee becomes vested with the right of compensation for the entire pipe line right of way easement taken, and a subsequent release of a part of the interest taken, without agreement with the condemnee is purely voluntary on the part of the condemnor and such release does not reduce the amount of damages sustained by the original taking.

Appeal from the District Court of McClain County; Elvin J. Brown, Judge.

Action by plaintiff for condemnation of pipe line right of way easement across property of defendants. From verdict of jury and judgment thereon fixing the damages sustained by the defendants, the plaintiff appeals.

M. Darwin Kirk, J. P. Greve, Ben Hatcher, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Hardin Ballard, Purcell, for defendants in error.

IRWIN, Justice.

Mid-Continent Pipe Line Company, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, commenced proceedings for the condemnation of a pipe line right of way easement across forty acres of land owned by defendants. The report of the commission fixed the amount of damages at $1010.40. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial and the jury assessed the value at $954.00, and a judgment was rendered accordingly. Plaintiff perfected its appeal from the order overruling its motion for a new trial.

PROPOSITION I

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in excluding its evidence relative to the fair cash market value of the property appropriated or taken by plaintiff, that is, the right of way easement. Plaintiff's theory is that the proper way to establish the damages sustained is to establish the value of the easement together with any consequential damage to the property not taken.

The evidence which was excluded by the trial court is as follows: Witness M's testimony that the value of the easement was $3.00 per rod; Witness B's testimony that the value of the easement was between $3.00 to $5.00 a rod including crop damages; and Witness G's testimony that the value of the easement was $6.00 a rod.

The pipe line easement contains approximately 78 rods. Under Witness M's testimony the total damages would have been $234.00; Under Witness B's testimony the sum of $312.00; and under Witness G's testimony the sum of $468.00.

Plaintiff was permitted to offer evidence as to the value of the land prior to taking and the value after taking. In addition to this plaintiff's Witness N was permitted to testify that the value of the easement was $78.00 and the damage by reason of laying the pipe line was $156.00 or a total sum of $234.00 for the easement or damages. Therefore two of the witnesses' testimony which was excluded exceeded the testimony admitted and the testimony of one was the same. The evidence excluded was cumulative to the testimony admitted so plaintiff was given the opportunity to present testimony relative to the value of the easement.

We have heretofore stated the rule in Condemnation Cases. In State v. Weaver, Okl., 297 P.2d 549, we held:

'Where a part only of a tract of land is condemned and damages are sought for the value of that taken and consequential damages to that not taken, the measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the whole property immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the portion left immediately after the taking; * * *'.

In Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Williams, 208 Okl. 577, 257 P.2d 1052, we said:

'As a general rule, the fair cash market value of the land taken under eminent domain is the value at the time of the taking together with such depreciation in the market value of the land not taken as may be reasonably anticipated to result from the taking. State ex rel. City of Ardmore v. Winters, 195 Okl. 243, 156 P.2d 798; Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Coppedge, 110 Okl. 261, 237 P. 592.'

In Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. State ex rel. Department of Highways, 205 Okl. 325, 237 P.2d 878, we held:

'In condemnation proceedings the sole issue is the fair market value of the land taken and damage to remaining portion of tract, if any, and verdict of jury will not be disturbed if supported by any competent evidence.'

In Champlin Refining Co. v. Donnell, 173 Okl. 527, 49 P.2d 208, 103 A.L.R. 157, Champlin condemned a pipe line right of way across defendants lands. The trial court sustained an objection to the...