Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Valentine, 41569
| Decision Date | 21 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41569,41569 |
| Citation | 124 So.2d 690,239 Miss. 890 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. J. A. VALENTINE et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Beard, Pack & Ratcliff, Laurel, for appellant.
George D. Maxey, E. K. Collins, Laurel, for appellees.
Appellant, State Highway Commission, filed in the County Court of the First Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi, a petition to condemn for highway purposes a twenty-acre strip of land through the Valentines' cattle farm. The jury in the county court rendered a verdict for the Valentines of $32,000. The Commission appealed to the circuit court, where the jury's verdict was $28,500. The Commission contends the verdict, upon which the circuit court's judgment was based, was so grossly excessive as to evince bias, passion and prejudice by the jury. We agree with that position.
Appellees, Mr. and Mrs. J. A. Valentine, own a 138-acre cattle farm in the first district of Jones County, southwest of the City of Ellisville. The property consists of two 40-acre tracts, one north of the other, another 40 west of the north subdivision, and an irregularly shaped tract of about 18 acres about the two north forties. Adjacent to the north portion is State Highway 590, and below it is a county road on the west side. Near the state highway and county road on the west is the residence.
The strip of land condemned by appellant contains 20 acres, is 370 feet wide, and runs in a northeasterly and southwesterly direction through the eastern portion of the farm. To the south and east of this nonaccess highway, there are 34 acres which are separated from the remaining 84 acres of the place to the west of the highway. Although the Commission is condemning access rights, there would be a permissive user of a viaduct under the highway from the western 84 to the eastern 34 acres. However, since the use is permissive only, the effect of the highway is to cut off access to the east tract, which is bounded on its east side by the Mississippi State Hospital at Ellisville. Hence, looking at the matter most favorably to appellees, the Highway Commission is condemning a right of way of 20 acres, and cutting off appellees' access to the 34 acres east of the highway. The condemnation does not take mineral rights under the highway.
None of the improvements upon this cattle farm are being taken by the right of way, except possibly some fencing which is not described. The residence near the northwest line is an old, five-room home, in 'dire need of repair.' It consists of 1,100-1,200 square feet. The access of this residence to the state highway and the county road is unchanged. To the east of the home is a substantial, good barn, constructed primarily for the feeding of cattle, with a large area for the storage of hay above the ground level. It contains about 4,200 square feet. There are an electric pump several small outhouses, and three cattle ponds. None of these improvements are taken, the right of way being considerably to the east of them. All of these improvements are on the 84-acre tract west of the highway.
The 34 acres south and east of the highway consist of about 9 acres in woodland, principally of unmerchantable timber, and 25 acres in improved pasture. The entire farm contains about 120-125 acres of improved pasture land.
The following is an outline of the testimony for both parties as to valuations of this property before and after taking, and the damages:
Before Taking After Taking Damages
------------------------------------
For Commission:
Clarence Boone $22,000 $15,400 $6,600
L. C. Kirkland $21,000 $15,000 $6,000
For Defendants:
M. P. Carter $71,350 $26,225 $45,125
The witnesses for the Commission were qualified and experienced appraisers, and gave a reasoned analysis of the basis of their valuations. On the other hand, the witnesses for appellees had relatively little experience in property appraisals, and failed to give any substantial reasons to support their extremely high estimates of the value of this 138-acre cattle farm before the taking, or of the damages. For example, after a lengthy cross-examination, Blackledge was asked how he reached the figure of $70,000. He said: 'Due to the location and type of soil and its value, and the improvements, that is what I guessed it is worth.' Both he and Carter mentioned the size and the good soil, the condition of the land and pasture, its location to towns, schools and roads and the reduction in size of the farm as an operating unit, the difference between a profitable and unprofitable operation. However, the test is the fair market value of the land before and after the taking, and does not include the highly speculative and uncertain profits which may be derived from a business. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Rogers, 1959, 236 Miss. 800, 112 So.2d 250; Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Ellzey, 1959, 237 Miss. 345, 114 So.2d 769. Neither of appellees' witnesses could give any comparable sales of reasonably comparable property in the area to support their appraisals.
Even if we wholly discount any remaining value in the 34-acre tract east of the highway, which is cut off from the farm, and figure that the Commission is in effect taking that as well as the 20-acre right of way, a total of 54 acres, the verdict of $28,500 runs at a rate of $528 per acre for improved pasture land, with no structural improvements.
Carter figures that the taking of 54 acres depreciates the property by 2/3 of its original value, although only 9/23 of the total farm is taken. His total appraisal of $71,350 put a valuation on the land of $517 per acre and a value of $828 per acre for the 54 acres taken and affected by the condemnation.
Blackledge figured the taking depreciated the property by about 3/5 of its total original value, although only 9/23 is taken. His before-taking value of $70,000 comprises $507 per acre for the entire farm; for the 54 acres taken and affected, $777 per acre.
The gross excessiveness of these figures and the jury's verdict becomes particularly apparent when it is noted that no improvements whatever are taken, except some undescribed fences; and appellees' witnesses could give no comparable sales to support their appraisals.
Appellees' brief makes only an indefinite argument in support of the amount of the verdict. It is that Miss. Constitution, Sec. 31 provides the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. However, Secs. 144-177 of the Constitution vest the judicial power of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ainsworth, 42998
...set aside verdicts because they were so grossly inadequate as to evince bias, passion or prejudice. In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Valentine, 239 Miss. 890, 124 So.2d 690, the Court set aside the verdict in an eminent domain case as being so grossly excessive as to evince bias, ......
-
Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Bridgforth, 96-CA-00926-SCT
...is based upon an imaginary tract of land with an unbelievably high price per square foot. They cite Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Valentine, 239 Miss. 890, 124 So.2d 690 (1960), for the proposition that: It is the duty of this Court to determine whether there is any reasonable, believ......
-
Green Acres Memorial Park, Inc. v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 42658
...of the land upon which it is carried on. Nichols on Eminent Domain, 3d Ed., Vol. 4, Sec. 13.3, p. 439; Miss. State Highway Commission v. Valentine, 239 Miss. 890, 124 So.2d 690; Miss. State Highway Commission v. Ladner, 243 Miss. 139, 137 So.2d 791; Miss. State Highway Commission v. McCardl......
-
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hall
...134 So.2d 467 (1961); McDuffie v. Mississippi State Highway Comm., 239 Miss. 518, 124 So.2d 284 (1960); Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Valentine, 239 Miss. 890, 124 So.2d 690 (1960); Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Brooks, 239 Miss. 308, 123 So.2d 423 (1960); Mississippi State Highwa......