Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 03 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41526,41526 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Charles A. BROOKS et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jesse W. Shanks, Purvis, for appellant.
Edward J. Currie, Sr., and Edward J. Currie, Jr., Hattiesburg, W. E. Andrews, Jr., Purvis, for appellees.
This case is before us on appeal by the Mississippi State Highway Commission from a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Lamar County in favor of Charles A. Brooks and his wife for the sum of $5,000 as damages for the taking of a parcel of land containing 1.30 acres in eminent domain proceedings for use as a part of the right of way for interstate highway No. 59, a limited access four-lane highway, which is being constructed as a part of the Federal interstate highway system. The parcel of land sought to be condemned is a strip of land 897 feet in length off of the west side of a 27.31-acre tract of land owned by Brooks and his wife and described as a fractional part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 4, North, Range 14 West. The strip of land sought to be condemned is 62.3 feet in width at the north end and 58.4 feet in width at the south end. There were no improvements on the 1.30 acre strip sought to be condemned, except a fence erected thereon by H. S. Ford as a boundary line fence between the Brooks land and the land owned by Ford, which lies immediately west of the Brooks land.
The case was tried in a special court of eminent domain on May 5, 1959, and the jury after hearing the testimony returned a verdict in favor of the landowners for $1,000. Judgment was entered for that amount and from that judgment Brooks and his wife prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court. The case was tried de novo in the circuit court at the July 1959 term, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the landowners for the sum of $5,000. The State Highway Commission filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and from the judgment rendered in favor of the landowners for the amount last mentioned the State Highway Commission has prosecuted this appeal.
The record in the case shows that the Brooks 27-acre tract of land lies immediately west of the corporate limits of the City of Hattiesburg, and that the eastern boundary line of the 27-acre tract coincides with the county line between Forrest County and Lamar County. The land is situated about one-half mile south of State Highway No. 98, and access to said highway is provided by a gravel road running southwardly from the point where said highway crosses the county line to the northeast corner of the Brooks tract. The gravel road mentioned is referred to in the record as 'South 40th Avenue.' The Brooks property is situated about one mile east or southeast of Mississippi Southern College and about the same distance from the Forrest County General Hospital. The testimony of the witnesses shows that there are several dwelling houses on the land lying north of the Brooks property and south of Highway No. 98. There are no dwelling houses on the land lying south of the Brooks property within a half mile of the Brooks property. H. S. Ford owns the land lying immediately west of the Brooks property; and the Lamar Parks Subdivision, which has been partially developed as a residential section, lies immediately west of the Ford property. The Panama Park Subdivision, which is situated within the corporate limits of the City of Hattiesburg, is about one-half mile east of the Brooks property. The Brooks land is cut over woodland or grazing land on which there is located a small amount of growing timber. Part of the land is level and part of the land is hilly, but there are no gullies. There is a seven-room dwelling house on the land, which is occupied by the Brooks family as a homestead. The dwelling house is a frame building located on the north side of the 27-acre tract and several hundred feet east of the new highway. The house is equipped with a butane gas system and is amply supplied with running water from a deep well located on the premises. Approximately 200 feet south of the dwelling house there is a three-acre pond or lake, which is supplied with water draining into it from a hollow extending back westwardly across the Brooks land and the adjoining 40-acre tract owned by H. S. Ford.
Four witnesses testified for the State Highway Commission during the trial in the circuit court.
W. K. Magee, Project Engineer of the State Highway Commission, who identified a plat of the Brooks land showing the location of the strip of land to be taken, testified that the highway right of way was to be 300 feet in width, or 150 feet on each side of the center line. The strip sought to be taken from the Brooks tract, as stated above, was approximately 60 feet in width. The remaining part of the 300-ft. right of way was to be taken off the Ford tract. Magee stated that, when the highway was completed, the highway embankment at the northwest corner of the Brooks property would be about two feet above the present ground level; at the southwest corner there would be a cut of about two feet; and about the center of the 900-ft. strip the fill at one point would be about 17 feet high. Magee stated that the pattern of drainage of the watershed west of the highway would be changed in one respect only, namely, that there would be a 48-inch pipe line in the bottom of the hollow. There would be approximately 23 acres of the watershed west of the higway, and drainage of that area would be taken care of by the 48-inch pipe. Magee was asked on cross-examination whether after the pipe line was put there it would dump water on the property on the east side. He stated that in his opinion there would be but little difference in the amount of water which would pass through the 48-inch pipe line onto the Brooks land after the construction of the fill and the amount of water which was accustomed to pass down in its natural channel before the construction of the fill; that the flared-end headwall of the 48-inch culvert would allow the water to spread out on a concrete apron; and that the water would flow onto the Brooks land in about the same manner as it was accustomed to flow in its natural state. Magee stated that there might be some erosion down into the lake as a result of the construction, but the type of clay soil found on the Brooks land did not wash easily.
Three witnesses testified for the Highway Commission concerning the value of the Brooks property before and after the taking. J. F. Ruffin, Jr., real estate broker of Hattiesburg, with many years experience in making appraisals for the HOLC, the FHA, the VA and other money lending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearl River Val. Water Supply Dist. v. Wood, 43478
...292, 294 (1899). See also Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Roche, 163 So.2d 874 (Miss.1964); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Brooks, 239 Miss. 308, 317, 123 So.2d 423 (1960); State Highway Commission v. Brown, 176 Miss. 23, 168 So. 277 (1936); 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain Sec. 16......
-
Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Bridgforth, 96-CA-00926-SCT
...Hancock, 309 So.2d 867 (Miss.1975)(property's value enhanced by its adaptability to different uses); Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Brooks, 239 Miss. 308, 316-317, 123 So.2d 423 (1960)(property taken should be valued not just with reference to present use, but to highest and best use);......
-
Dedeaux Utility Co. v. City of Gulfport, No. 2005-CA-00102-SCT.
...use to which the property, which is taken for the public use, is adapted should be considered. Miss. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Brooks, 239 Miss. 308, 316-17, 123 So.2d 423, 427 (1960). Mississippi courts routinely consider highest and best use in eminent domain cases: Tunica County v. Matthews, ......
-
Dennis v. City Council of Greenville
...a "probability that the land would be used within a reasonable time for [single family residences]." Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Brooks, 239 Miss. 308, 123 So.2d 423, 427 (1960); State Highway Commission of Mississippi v. Smith, 511 So.2d at 883. Our rule is that while any use t......