Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hancock, 47937
| Decision Date | 17 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 47937,47937 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. R. HANCOCK and Mrs. Sarah L. Hancock. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Campbell & Campbell, Yazoo City, for appellant.
Henry, Barbour & DeCell, Yazoo City, for appellees.
Before GILLESPIE, INZER and BROOM, JJ.
This is an appeal by the Mississippi State Highway Commission from a judgment of a Special Court of Eminent Domain convened in the County Court of Yazoo County awarding appellees $30,000 as damages for the taking of 18.35 acres of their property. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $33,573.67, but upon motion by the commission for a new trial, the court ordered a new trial unless a remittitur of $3,573.67 was entered by the landowners. The remittitur was entered and when the commission appealed, the landowners cross appealed seeking to have the jury verdict reinstated.
Appellees Mr. and Mrs. R. Hancock are the owners of 1,359 acres of land located about a mile and a half north of Bentonia in Yazoo County. The present U.S. Highway 49 traverses this property in a north-south direction. In order to widen the highway into four lanes, it was necessary to take 18.35 acres of appellees' land. The land taken lies on both sides of the highway, with 12.89 acres on the west side and 5.46 acres on the east side. The take also included about 8,200 feet of fencing.
The commission offered two qualified appraisers who testified relative to the value of the property taken. John Turner testified that in his opinion the fair market value of the entire tract of property immediately before the taking was $407,700 and the fair market value of the remaining property after the taking was $396,050, making a total damage to the landowners in the amount of $11,650. He valued the entire tract at $300 per acre, with its highest and best use for farm and pasture land. He valued the 18.35 acres at $5,500 and placed a value on the 8,200 feet of fencing at $6,150 based on an opinion that the fence would cost 75 cents per linear foot to reproduce. On cross examination, the appellees showed that this witness was unfamiliar with some of the recent sales of residential lots in this particular area.
Robert Bond testified that he based his appraisal of the property on his opinion that the highest and best use of the whole tract was farm land. He valued the property at $350 per acre with a total valuation of $475,650, immediately before the taking and a valuation of $464,635 immediately after the taking with a damage to the landowners of $11,285.
On cross examination this witness was asked as to his knowledge whether there was any demand for residential lots in this area. He admitted that he had not talked with any real estate agents in the area to determine if there was any demand for residential lots. He was also questioned concerning the possibility that there was a water supply available to the property by means of a rural water line. He was unaware of any such water line and was of the opinion that none existed. It was subsequently proven that the subject property was served by a rural water system.
Mr. Robert Hancock, one of the landowners, testified that he was familiar with the value of real estate in the area and that in his opinion, the property along both sides of the highway had the highest and best use for residential property. In his opinion there was approximately 280 acres that was readily adaptable to this use. He testified that he had received many requests to sell lots along each side of the highway. He placed a value of $1,250 per acre on the land taken based upon his opinion that the highest and best use was for residential purposes. He stated that he was familiar with other sales in the area for building sites and that it was his intention to subdivide some of his land and to sell it as residential lots, particularly in the area where there was a large lake. He estimated that it would cost $1.50 per linear foot to replace the fence that was taken. In his opinion that fair market value of the entire tract immediately before the taking was $679,500 and immediately after the taking was $639,262.50, with a resulting damage for the taking of $40,237.50.
Ted Russell, a real estate broker with many years of experience and a qualified appraiser, testified on behalf of the landowners that in his opinion there were 241 acres of the property that had a highest and best use as rural residential with the remainder having a highest and best use as farm property. He placed a fair market value on the entire tract immediately before the taking of $684,174 and immediately after the taking of $650,301.50 for a total damage of $33,872.50. Included in this before and after valuation was the property along the highway, which he valued as residential property at $1,250 per acre and the fencing taken valued at $1.35 per linear foot.
Mr. J. P. Sartain, a real estate broker with many years experience and a qualified appraiser, testified that in his opinion the fair market value of the entire tract immediately before the taking was $654,361 and that the value of the remaining property immediately after the taking was $621,347, for a difference of $33,014, as total damages due the landowner as a result of the taking. He also was of the opinion that all the property taken along both sides of the highway was suitable and adaptable as rural residential.
Both appraisers testified as to the adaptability of the land along the highway for residential purposes and also testified as to the demand for rural residential property in that area.
Mr. William Cox, who resides in the area, testified that although he was not in the real estate business he was familiar with the land sales in the area. This witness testified that there was a great and continuing demand for residential lots in the area and that he had recently sold some of his property for residential lots. It was his estimate that 100 acres of the landowners' property could easily be sold for residential purposes in the immediate future, particularly along both sides of the highway.
It is apparent that the variance in the values placed by the appraisers for the highway department and those by the landowners grows out of the difference of opinion as to the highest and best use of the property in question and a difference of opinion as to the value of the fencing actually taken.
Appellant contends that there is no substantial testimony of probative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDaniel v. Ritter
...Court looks with favor upon a trial judge's rulings on a motion for a new trial, especially when granted. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hancock, 309 So.2d 867 (Miss.1975); Houston v. Page, 208 So.2d 901 (Miss.1968); Conner v. Hatcher, 203 So.2d 309 (Miss.1967); Womble v. Mississip......
-
MISSISSIPPI TRANSP. COMM. v. Highland Dev. LLC
...after the taking, without considering the general benefits or injuries to the use of the taken land. Miss. State Highway Comm'n v. Hancock, 309 So.2d 867, 870 (Miss.1975). Also in eminent domain cases we are "not at liberty to order a new trial unless the verdict is so at variance with the ......
-
K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy ex rel. Hardy
...manifest error appears or unless its action in sustaining the motion manifests an abuse of discretion." Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Hancock, 309 So.2d 867, 871 (Miss.1975). ¶ 13. In Mississippi, a plaintiff may espouse one of three theories in support of a claim of negligence such a......
-
Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Bridgforth, 96-CA-00926-SCT
...in response, rely on this Court's decisions in Oughton v. Gaddis, 683 So.2d 390, 394 (Miss.1996) and Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Hancock, 309 So.2d 867, 870-871 (Miss.1975), asserting that Harris properly assigned different values to different parts of the property. Further, they co......