Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Stubbs

• Decision Date: 07 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 41568,41568
• Citation: 124 So.2d 281,239 Miss. 499
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Claude E. STUBBS et ux.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 281

124 So.2d 281

239 Miss. 499

MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Claude E. STUBBS et ux.

No. 41568.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 7, 1960.

Beard, Pack & Ratcliff, Laurel, for appellant.

George D. Maxey, Laurel, for appellees.

McGEHEE, Chief Justice.

This is an eminent domain proceeding which originated in the County Court of the First Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi. In that court there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the appellees Claude E. Stubbs and wife for the sum of $4,500. Upon appeal by the appellant, Mississippi State Highway Commission, to the Circuit Court of said county the trial judge ordered a reversal in the case unless the plaintiff would enter a remittitur in the sum of $1,000, reducing the verdict and judgment to the sum of $3,500. The appellees declined or failed to enter the remittitur and consequently the verdict and judgment rendered in the county court were set aside and a trial de novo ordered in the circuit court.

As a result of the trial in the circuit court there was a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of the appellees for the sum of $5,021 for a strip of unimproved land containing 7.18 acres taken by the appellant for highway purposes, and hence this appeal by the Mississippi State Highway Commission.

The two grounds of error assigned for a reversal of the case are: First, that the trial court erred in permitting the sole witness for the appellees to testify as to the before and after value of the premises, without having qualified from knowledge and experience to testify as to the before and after value of the slightly more than 15 acres of the land of the appellees, all under fence, and from which the 7.18-acre strip of land was taken for highway purposes; and secondly, that the verdict of the jury and judgment of the circuit court is so grossly excessive as to evince bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.

It may be that the witness for the appellees was technically competent to testify as to the land values under the decisions in the cases of Board of Levee Com'rs, etc. v. Hendricks, 77 Miss. 483, 27 So. 613, and Board of Levee Com'rs, etc. v. Nelms, 82 Miss. 416, 34 So. 149, but we are of the opinion that his testimony had little, or no, probative value. Three witnesses of knowledge, training and experience testified as to their familiarity with land values in that area and of their knowledge from observation of the particular land in question.

One of these three witnesses testified as to the kind, quantity and character of the appellees' 15 and a fraction acres of land, and as to the value of the improvements on the land not taken, but this witness was introduced by the appellant in support of its motion to have the jury in the circuit court view the premises during the trial. The appellees joined in this motion but the trial court overruled the same on the ground that due to the construction work which had been done on the right-of-way, prior to that trial, a view of the premises would not avail the jury anything in determining the value of the land before the right-of-way was taken and placed under construction. No error is assigned because of the overruling of the appellant's motion for the jury to view the premises, and therefore the question of whether or no the motion for a view of the premises by the jury should have been sustained is not now before us.

The other two witnesses introduced by the appellant testified as to their knowledge, training and experience in determining land values, and they disclosed that they were fully competent to testify as witnesses as to the value before and after the taking of the right-of-way in the instant case,...