Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Herring, 41934
| Decision Date | 02 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 41934,41934 |
| Citation | 241 Miss. 729,133 So.2d 279 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Sherlock J. HERRING et ux. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jesse W. Shanks, Purvis, for appellant.
William E. Andrews, Purvis, Edward J. Currie, Sr. & Jr., Hattiesburg, for appellees.
The Mississippi Highway Commission filed an application for condemnation of 13.2 acres of land belonging to the defendants in an eminent domain court in Lamar County, Mississippi. The jury awarded the defendants a judgment for $10,820, and from a judgment entered as a result of this verdict, the Commission appealed to the Circuit Court of Lamar County, where the case was again heard and the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants in the sum of $13,887. After the judgment was entered, the appellant made a motion for a new trial. The motion was overruled, and the appellant has appealed to this Court, and complains that (1) the verdict of the jury in the circuit court was contrary to the law, and against the great weight of evidence introduced in the trial, (2) the verdict and judgment were not based upon credible evidence, and (3) that the verdict is so excessive as to shock the enlightened conscience and was the product of bias, prejudice or sympathy.
We have carefully reviewed the testimony and the procedure in the trial court, and we are persuaded that there is only one question to be determined here, and that is: Is the verdict so excessive as to shock the enlightened conscience, or so excessive as to evince passion or prejudice?
The record in this case reveals that on June 23, 1960, the defendants, Sherlock J. Herring and his wife, Mary Florence Herring, owned 120 acres of rolling land in a rural section of Lamar County, Mississippi. This property is located about three and one-half miles northeast of Purvis, Mississippi. Defendants own three 40-acre blocks running east and west. The highway right-of-way, sought to be taken, is a strip of land about 370 feet wide running through their east forty from a point near the southeast corner and across the northeast corner in such a manner as to cut off 9.87 acres of land in the southeast corner of the east forty-acre block of land. This strip of land which has been taken is 13.2 acres, and forms a 'cut' across the entire east forty. On the south end of the 'cut' the highway will be, when completed, six feet below the surface of the surrounding land, and will finally reach a depth of 35 feet at the north end of defendants' east forty.
The defendants' dwelling, outhouses, barn, sheds and residential improvements are located on the line between defendants' middle and their east forty, and is on the south side of a gravel road which passes across defendants' east forth from the northwest to southeast. This gravel road is known as the 'Slade Road', and will be permanently blocked by the new interstate highway, so that defendants will be unable to use the 'Slade Road' to the east and south. The new interstate highway is a limited access highway, and the defendants will not be permitted to enter the interstate highway directly from their property, but will be required to go to a point of entrance several miles away from their property in order to travel along the highway passing through their land. The defendants will be cut off from the land on the east side of the highway. This land will therefore be of little use to the defendants, so that, in effect, the defendants are losing the use of 23.07 acres of their east forty.
The evidence shows that there are 3.25 acres of cultivatable pasture land, 85 acres of woodland, and a two-acre house site. The improvements upon the property consist of a good five-room dwelling house, in which defendants have installed electric utilities, butane gas heaters and equipment, a bathroom and sewer system as well as running water brought into the house by an electric pump from a well located on the property. It is also shown that there are a barn, two tool sheds, a smokehouse, a chicken house and a small 'office building.' The defendants have planted an orchard and about 1,000 tung trees on the property. There are 65 acres of land under fence, and there is a sparse growth of young timber on the property. The dense part of the timber was located on the strip of land condemned for highway use.
The appellant, Highway Department, introduced three witnesses, and defendants introduced two witnesses, who testified as to the value of the defendants' property, and the damages caused by the condemnation of the property for highway purposes. The defendant Sherlock J. Herring took the stand in his own behalf and testified as to the damages. All of these witnesses based their testimony on the value of the property before the taking, less the value of the property after the taking in determining the damages resulting to the property because of the condemnation. A short outline, or compendium, of the testimony introduced by both sides, with reference to the value of defendants' property, is as follows:
Witness Value Before Value After Resulting Damage
For the Highway Department
J. W. Morgan $20,000.00 $13,500.00 $ 6,500.00
B. J. Beard 22,000.00 16,500.00 5,500.00
Paul Rayburn 18,750.00 11,600.00 7,150.00
For Defendant
O. E. Hart, Sr. $35,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00
Ben Courtney 42,908.50 29,995.00 12,912.50
Sherlock Herring 35,000.00 17,500.00 17,500.00
It will be noted from the testimony of the defendant Sherlock Herring that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackard v. Hercules, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-175-KS-MTP
...highest court suggest that distinguishing between these harms is more than mere semantics. See Miss. State Highway Comm'n v. Herring, 241 Miss. 729, 133 So. 2d 279 (Miss. 1961); Miss. Power Co. v. Byrd, 160 Miss. 71, 133 So. 193 (Miss. 1931). Herring was a condemnation proceeding involving ......
-
Blackard v. Hercules, Inc.
...highest court suggest that distinguishing between these harms is more than mere semantics. See Miss. State Highway Comm'n v. Herring, 241 Miss. 729, 133 So.2d 279 (Miss.1961) ; 17 F.Supp.3d 581Miss. Power Co. v. Byrd, 160 Miss. 71, 133 So. 193 (Miss.1931). Herring was a condemnation proceed......
-
Blackard v. Hercules, Inc.
...highest court suggest that distinguishing between these harms is more than mere semantics. See Miss. State Highway Comm'n v. Herring, 241 Miss. 729, 133 So.2d 279 (Miss.1961); [17 F.Supp.3d 581] Miss. Power Co. v. Byrd, 160 Miss. 71, 133 So. 193 (Miss.1931). Herring was a condemnation proce......
-
Pearl River Val. Water Supply Dist. v. Brown, 43854
...Miss. 476, 482, 160 So.2d 201, 161 So.2d 526 (1964). In that case this Court pointed out that in Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Herring, 241 Miss. 729, 133 So.2d 279, 895 (1961), and Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Slade, 241 Miss. 721, 133 So.2d 282, 896 (1961), the appell......