Mississippi State Highway Commission v. McArn, 46203
| Decision Date | 05 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46203,46203 |
| Citation | 246 So.2d 512 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Lavelle McARN et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Ben H. Walley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Zachary, Weldy & Ingram, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
Broom & Singley, Columbia, for appellees.
This is an appeal by Mississippi State Highway Commission from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County awarding appellees Lavelle McArn and his wife Charlene McArn, $32,000 as damages for the taking of .72 acres of land for highway purposes. We affirm.
Prior to the taking, appellees owned a four acre tract of land located on the east side of State Highway No. 13 about .4 mile north of the corporate limits of the City of Columbia. This property fronted a distance of 420 feet on the highway and the taking extended east a depth of 103.5 feet on the north side and 80.7 feet on the south side. After the taking the remaining property fronted a distance of 408 feet on the highway. Located upon this property was a modern three bedroom residence in which appellees resided and upon that part of the land taken there was a grocery store operated by Mr. McArn. The building in which the grocery store was operated was a practically new 40 60 foot steel building with a brick and glass front. It had a paved parking lot for customers, a well and a septic tank. In the store in addition to the stock of goods, there was a walk-in cooler, a meat display case, two frozen food boxes, a dairy cooler, and a produce display cooler. Also located on the land was a sign and a sidewalk in front of the store.
Mr. James W. Matthews, an appraiser for the highway department, testified that in his opinion the fair market value of the entire tract before the taking was $39,650, and its value after the taking was $25,200, for a difference of $14,500, which in his opinion was due compensation. In arriving at these figures he stated that in his opinion before the taking the residence had a value of $20,000; the four acres of land, $6,400; grocery store building, $12,000; parking lot, $1,000; two signs, $250; making a total of $39,650. He stated that after the taking the residence was worth $20,000; the remaining land $5,200, for a total of $25,200. He did not consider the fact that the land taken had a well and septic tank thereon because in his opinion it did not add anything to the value of the land taken. He did not attribute any damage to the remainder of the property by virtue of the loss of the 12 foot frontage on the highway nor did he attribute any damage for the removal of stock of goods and fixtures from the premises.
Mr. Richard Ball, a qualified real estate appraiser, testified on behalf of the landowners and in his opinion, the fair market value of the entire tract before the taking was $71,199, and its fair market value after the taking was $35,030, resulting in a damage of $36,169, which in his opinion was fair compensation for the taking.
The jury after viewing this property assessed the appellees' damages at $32,000, and a judgment was entered accordingly. Appellant assigns as error the following: (1) cost of removal of personal property is not an element of damage in an eminent domain proceeding; and (2) the verdict of the jury in the amount of $32,000 is excessive and contrary to and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Mr. McArn was allowed to testify over the objection of the appellant that in his opinion it would cost him approximately $4,100 to remove the stock of goods and store fixtures from the premises. This included the damage that in his opinion would result from breakage and other damage that ordinarily occurs in moving this type or property. Appellant does not contend that Mr. McArn would not incur expense in moving the personal property from the premises, but relies upon the general rule that the landowner cannot recover expenses incurred in removing personal property from the premises taken for public use. However, we pointed out in Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Rogers, 242 Miss. 439, 136 So.2d 216 (1961), that Mississippi Constitution § 17 (1890) provides that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use except on due compensation being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruett v. State, 89-CA-0814
...228, 230 (Miss.1975) ( [value equals] difference between fair market value before and after taking); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. McArn, 246 So.2d 512, 514 (Miss.1971). The money counsel received in the cases sub judice amounted to no more than token compensation, and it simply w......
-
City of Tupelo v. Patterson, 2015–IA–01409–SCT
...of Wade Baptist Church v. Miss. State Highway Comm'n , 469 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Miss. 1985) (citing Miss. State Highway Comm'n v. McArn , 246 So.2d 512, 514 (Miss.1971) ).¶ 50. Nowhere in the history of this Court has the language of Article 3, Section 17, been expanded to include damages for ......
-
City of Tupelo v. O'Callaghan, 2015-IA-01409-SCT
...of Wade Baptist Church v. Miss. State Highway Comm'n, 469 So. 2d 1241, 1244 (Miss. 1985) (citing Miss. State Highway Comm'n v. McArn, 246 So. 2d 512, 514 (Miss.1971)).¶50. Nowhere in the history of this Court has the language of Article 3, Section 17, been expanded to include damages for pe......
-
Potters II v. State Highway Com'n of Mississippi, 90-CC-1096
...analogous settings. See, e.g., Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Rives, 271 So.2d 725 (1972); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. McArn, 246 So.2d 512, 514-15 (Miss.1971); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Central Land & Rental Co., 239 So.2d 335, 337-38 (Miss.1970); Mississ......