Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Howard, 43573

• Decision Date: 14 June 1965
• Docket Number: No. 43573,43573
• Citation: 176 So.2d 294,253 Miss. 556
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISION v. W. E. HOWARD, Jr., et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 294

176 So.2d 294

253 Miss. 556

MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISION v. W. E. HOWARD, Jr., et al.

No. 43573.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 14, 1965.

Welch, Gibbes & Graves, Laurel, for appellant.

Deavours & Hilbun, Laurel, for appellees.

JONES, Justice:

This case was tried in the County Court for the Second Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi, and resulted in a verdict in favor of appellees in the sum of $25,500. On appeal to the circuit court of said district, the judgment was affirmed and the cause now comes here. We affirm the case.

The Highway Commission filed suit for the condemnation of 18.55 acres and 3.85 acres, the larger acreage being for the construction of a new interstate highway, and the 3.85 acres for an access or frontage road along said highway.

The Howards owned 180 acres of land 3.6 miles north of the city limits of Laurel. The land was described as NW 1/4 of NE 1/4, N 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Sec. 14, NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec. 15, and approximately 20 acres in the SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Sec. 14, being that part of the 40 lying north and east of a line beginning a short distance north of the southeast corner of said 40 and running to a point a short distance south of the northwest corner, all in Township 9 N, Range 11 E. The present U. S. Highway 11 ran through the southern part of the twenty acres aforesaid, and northeasterly across the southeastern part of the NW 1/4 of NE 1/4. A road by which the Howards had access to their residence on the above land ran from the west boundary line of present U. S. Highway northwesterly along the southwest boundary of the twenty acres aforesaid.

On the eastern part of their lands between the old highway and the right-of-way to be acquired was a highpower line of Mississippi Power Company. West of the highway was the main line of Southern Railway Company, and farther west was Tallahala Creek. The lands to be condemned extended from the northwest portion of the twenty acre tract in a northeasterly direction across the NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 and across the northwest corner of the NW 1/4 of NE 1/4. At the south end the right-of-way for the interstate road was approximately 376 feet wide, and the frontage road to the west thereof was about 84 feet wide. At the north end, because of the angle at which it lay, the right-of-way was approximately 500 feet wide, and for the frontage road, 117.8 feet.

The road leading from U. S. Highway 11 to the residence of the appellees was the only entrance and exit and was severed by the new right-of-way. Their lands are used for row crops, cattle raising, and as a tree farm. There are five ponds on the property, ranging from one-half acre to approximately four acres in size. There are three tenant houses, all occupied, one of which was taken. There are also a number of barns, outhouses and sheds customarily found on farms. Other than the tenant house, there was also taken a water well at that house, a hog pen, one small pond, a portion of pasture land, a wooded area, and some open land which had recently been plainted in young pines.

It is shown that at the south end of the right-of-way and along the entry road aforesaid there is a water pipe leading across the right-of-way which supplies water from a house on one side of the right-of-way to a house on the other side, which will have to be abandoned. The entry road will be blocked at both ends of the right-of-way and the only entrance to the Howards' property will be by traveling in a northeasterly direction along the east side of the right-of-way, crossing under a bridge some distance north, and then down the frontage road on the west side of the right-of-way, a distance of approximately four miles, making a round trip of eight miles from lands east of the new highway to the home of the defendants on the west side. The new highway will divide the farm so that approximately 55 acres will lie east of the new highway and 102 acres west thereof.

The only assignment of error which we think needs discussion arises from the following facts. The witness Warren testified that he was an experienced real estate man and appraiser. At the request of the landowners, he valued this property and testified thereto. He valued the property before the taking at $138,060, after the taking at $82,327, making the damages $55,733. On cross-examination, he stated that it was approximately three-fourths of a mile from Highway 11 to the first tenant house. The map shows this distance to be less than one-fourth of a mile. When asked what kind of a tenant house, he said it was just 'a regular tenant house'; that it had approximately 500 square feet in it, but he declined to give the value thereof, saying that he did not appraise the individual house but appraised the property as a whole. He was asked if he thought it was worth $1,000, he said he 'wouldn't say the house was worth any dollars--as a part of the whole is the only way I would put it.' On being again asked and the answer being insisted upon, he said it 'may be worth more than $1,000--I don't know exactly what it is worth.' After considerable questioning, he reluctantly answered that the house would be worth about $3200.

Then the appellant's attorney asked: 'Mr. Warren, you have some notes there before you, do you mind my seeing these notes?' Attorneys for the appellees objected and the witness answered, 'No, you can't see these notes.' The attorney again asked to see the notes, but the witness stated they were not his property, they belonged to the Howards, although they were in his handwriting and he was referring to them while testifying. The witness was asked to tell the jury if he objected to the attorney seeing his notes, and he said, 'I don't think he has any right to see my notes--I...