Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Ramsey, 43529

• Decision Date: 05 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 43529,43529
• Citation: 173 So.2d 421,252 Miss. 365
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Randolph E. RAMSEY et ux.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 421

173 So.2d 421

252 Miss. 365

MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Randolph E. RAMSEY et ux.

No. 43529.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 5, 1965.

Welch, Gibbes & Graves, Laurel, for appellant.

Gartin, Hester & Pickering, Laurel, for appellees.

LEE, Chief Justice:

This is an eminent domain suit, brought in the County Court of Jones County by Mississippi State Highway Commission against Randolph E. Ramsey and wife, for the purpose of condemning a right-of-way to be used in the construction of Interstate Highway No. 59, a limited access facility.

The property of the landowners consisted of their home and approximately 100 acres in an irregular shape, as described in the petition. The home was in the extreme southeast corner, adjacent to U. S. Highway No. 11, about 4.4 miles north of the City of Laurel, and less than one-half of a mile to the corporate limits of the rural village of Sandersville. The right-of-way takes 16.18 acres, leaving 51.5 acres west and 32.65 acres east thereof, or a total residue of 84.15 acres.

In the right-of-way, there was timber of substantial value, together with several small pecan trees. There was one old dwelling house and an outhouse, in a poor state of repair; a good well with a pump in prime condition; and an artificial lake, with an area of three to three and one-half acres, which, concededly, will be ruined. It was further shown that there was no other place suitable for a pond of any substantial area. Such access as may be available to and from the property, which will be left west of the right-of-way, will be by circuitous route or routes, and from one and one-half to one and three-fourths miles from the home. The house, in which these people lived, was a two-story construction, spacious with numerous rooms, concrete walls, in an excellent state of repair, and in a desirable location with attractive surroundings and resplendent in beauty. Some of the land, suitable for pasturage purposes, or susceptible thereof, has been taken, or has been cut off and the value diminished because of limited access. Considerable portions of the tract are timbered areas with appreciable amounts of virgin timber; but difficulties will be experienced in its removal, when sold. At least 3,000 feet of fencing will be necessary.

Only two recognized appraisers, J. W. Morgan for the Highway Commission and James F. Parish for the landowners, testified in regard to the damages which will result from this condemnation. Morgan's estimate of damages was given as follows: Before value $42,000; after value $33,000; and resulting damages $9,000. Parish gave a before value of $157,318.38; after value $103,005; and resulting damages $54,313.38. W. E. McWhorter, a timber appraiser, gave a detailed statement of the timber which he found in the right-of-way, approximately 35,000 board feet of pine sawlogs.

The jury also viewed the property and returned a verdict, fixing the damage at $27,000. That judgment, on appeal, was affirmed by the circuit court; and the Commission has appealed.

The witness Morgan testified that he had caused a timber cruise to be made in order to determine the amount, extent and value of the timber on the property. Counsel for the landowners then asked what the value or amount of timber on the property was to which counsel for the Commission objected. The objection was overruled and the witness said that the amount of timber on the entire property was worth approximately $1,100. Subsequently on redirect, counsel for the Commission repeated the answer which the witness had given on cross examination, saying 'he (defense counsel) asked you the approximate value of the timber on the entire property, and you answered $1,100.' The witness replied, 'in the right-of-way.'

The appellant contends that this was error. However, the cross examiner had the right to test the judgment or accuracy of the witness. Besides it was not an effort to single out the timber value and thus effect a pyramiding of the damages. The witness was emphatic in his evidence that the item of damage to timber was merely taken into consideration in arriving at an over-all amount of the damage, which will result from this condemnation.

In the case of Foster v. Mississippi State Highway Comm., 244 Miss. 57, 140 So.2d 267 (1962), the opinion, at page 63, called attention to the case of Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hillman, 189 Miss. 850, 198 So. 565 (1940), which laid...