Moore v. State Highway Dept.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22987,22987 |
| Parties | S. Z. MOORE et al. v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
There was evidence to support the charge in question. Under Code § 36-505, the test is whether the land could be used for other purposes, and not whether the land would be used for other purposes. The Court of Appeals erred in holding to the contrary.
Pittman & Kinney, H. E. Kinney, Dalton, T. L. Shanahan, Calhoun, for plaintiff in error.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Horace E. Campbell, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Harry T. Lawrence, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Calhoun, for defendants in error.
This case is here from the Court of Appeals by writ of certiorari. The decision of that court is reported in State Highway Department v. Moore, 111 Ga.App. 474, 142 S.E.2d 120. The case is one of condemnation. The State Highway Department brought their action in which they sought to condemn the land of S. Z. Moore and others. Ultimately, the case was tried before a jury, a verdict and judgment were had, and the condemnor's motion for a new trial was overruled. The case was taken to the Court of Appeals where it was held: 'The court erred in charging the jury that in ascertaining the value of condemned land that had been used for agricultural purposes, it could consider all legitimate purposes to which the property could be appropriated other than the purposes for which it was used at the time of the taking, in the absence of evidence that there was a reasonable probability that it might be used as an approach to an airport or any other use than agriculture.' State Highway Department v. Moore, 111 Ga.App. 474, 475, 142 S.E.2d 120. Three judges dissented from this holding on the ground that there was evidence that the land in question was suitable for other uses and that this was sufficient to justify the charge in question. They also dissented on the ground that the State Highway Department was not harmed by the giving of the charge in any event.
We are of the opinion that the view taken by the dissenters in the Court of Appeals is correct and that it was error to reverse the trial court. Code § 36-505 provides that 'In estimating the value of land when taken for public uses, it is not restricted to its agricultural or productive qualities, but inquiry may be made as to all other legitimate purposes to which the property could be appropriated.' This Code section clearly states that the suitability of land for other uses, and not the probability that other uses will be made of the land, is the criterion. In Harrison v. Young, 9 Ga. 359(4), it was held: 'The value of land taken for public use, is not restricted to its agricultural or productive qualities, but inquiry may be made as to all other legitimate purposes to which the property could be appropriated.' See also Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 120 Ga. 268, 281, 48 S.E. 15 and Savannah, Augusta & Northern Railway Co. v. Williams, 133 Ga. 679, 681, 66 S.E. 942. It is clear under Code § 36-505 and the cited cases that the test is whether the land could be used for other purposes, and not whether the land would be used for other purposes.
Under the construction we give...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharpe v. Department of Transp.
...that an expert is entitled to explain all the various elements considered in formulating his opinion. Moore v. State Highway Dept., 221 Ga. 392, 393, 144 S.E.2d 747 (1965); State Highway Dept. v. Howard, 119 Ga.App. 298(6), 167 S.E.2d 177 (1969). However, because the loss of mineral deposit......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Harwell
...v. Green, 109 Ga.App. 743(1), 137 S.E.2d 397; State Hwy. Dept. v. Ferguson, 112 Ga.App. 875, 876, 147 S.E.2d 18; Moore v. State Hwy. Dept., 221 Ga. 392, 144 S.E.2d 747. 3. The seventh and eighth enumerations allege that the court erred in failing to exclude the testimony of certain witnesse......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Howard
...of land for other uses, and not the probability that other uses will be made of the land, is the criterion.' Moore v. State Highway Dept., 221 Ga. 392, 144 S.E.2d 747. 'The uses which may be considered must be so reasonably probable as to have an effect on the present market value of the la......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Cantrell
...evidence, from which the jury was warranted in drawing a reasonable inference of its suitability for various usages. Moore v. State Hwy. Dept., 221 Ga. 392, 144 S.E.2d 747; State Hwy. Dept v. Whitehurst, 109 Ga.App. 737, 137 S.E.2d 371. There was evidence which showed that the property take......