North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Pearce
| Decision Date | 06 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 533,533 |
| Citation | 261 N.C. 760,136 S.E.2d 71 |
| Parties | NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. John C. PEARCE and wife, Annie Pearce. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Thomas Wade Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harrison Lewis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Claude W. Harris, Trial Atty., for plaintiff appellee.
Miller & Beck, by Adam W. Beck, Asheboro, for defendant appellants.
All matters in dispute were settled by a consent judgment except the amount of just compensation which the plaintiff is due the defendants for the taking of a perpetual easement for highway purposes over their lands. With its declaration of taking, the plaintiff had deposited the sum of $5,950.00 as its estimate of the amount due. The defendants, in their answer, demanded $20,000.00. The jury fixed the recovery at $8,500.00.
The defendants demand a new trial upon the asserted ground the trial judge committed errors of law in three particulars: (1) By refusing to permit defendants' witnesses Galloway and Roberts to testify as to the price paid for other property in the vicinity; (2) by refusing to order a mistrial or set aside the verdict because of the argument of plaintiff's counsel; (3) by failing to instruct the jury as to the correct rule for the assessment of damages.
The defendants' witness Galloway, a real estate dealer, testified he knew the property involved and that immediately before the taking the 12 acres of defendants' property was worth $72,808.00; and immediately after, the remainder was worth $58,158.00, leaving a total damage of $24,650.00. The witness attempted to testify with respect to the sale of a lot on Balfour Avenue, (though he did not make the sale) to Esso (Humble Oil Company). Upon objection, the court excused the jury 'to determine whether or not it was comparable.' The court declined to permit the witness to tell how he knew the price, and refused to admit evidence on the ground it violated the hearsay rule. The court did not permit the defendant to insert in the record Galloway's answer to the question as to how he knew the price Esso paid for the lot.
The witness Roberts testified he knew the Pearce property and that immediately before the taking the whole was worth $74,439.00, and immediately afterwards the remainder was worth $48,001.00. In the abscence of the jury the witness offered to testify that he sold a lot across 220 to 'Carr Drug' and the Balfour Avenue property to Humble Oil Company, and the price paid by each purchaser. During the preliminary examination in the absence of the jury, it developed that the Oil Company had a lot on either side of the Balfour lot which was needed in order to complete the development. The judge held this sale to Humble was a pressure or a forced purchase, because of necessity--not on the open market--and refused to permit the witness to testify as to the price paid.
Evidently, in excluding the proffered testimony of Galloway and Roberts as to the sale of other properties, the judge had in mind what the Court said in Barnes v. Highway Comm., 250 N.C. 378, 109 S.E.2d 219:
In this case the evidence of similarity between the defendants' property and the lots...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity Bank v. Garner, 8020SC591
...proof ... a jury is presumed to be rational. State v. McGraw, 300 N.C. 610, 620, 268 S.E.2d 173, 179 (1980). See Highway Commission v. Pearce, 261 N.C. 760, 136 S.E.2d 71 (1964); Hamilton v. Henry, 239 N.C. 664, 80 S.E.2d 485 (1954). Nothing in this record indicates that the jury would have......
-
State v. Chapman
...State v. McPherson, 276 N.C. 482, 172 S.E.2d 50 (1970). See State v. Willis, 285 N.C. 195, 204 S.E.2d 33 (1974); Highway Commission v. Pearce, 261 N.C. 760, 136 S.E.2d 71 (1964). In the case under consideration, the witness had already testified that he did not know the effect of hollow tip......
-
State v. McCormick
...allow the attorney to make his offer of proof. State v. Chapman, 294 N.C. 407, 241 S.E.2d 667 (1978); North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Pearce, 261 N.C. 760, 136 S.E.2d 71 (1964); In Re Gamble, 244 N.C. 149, 93 S.E.2d 66 (1956); 1 Strong's N.C. Index 3d, Appeal and Error § 49.1 and......
-
Carver v. Lykes, 100
...Power Company were made under the threat of condemnation and were forced rather than voluntary sales. North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Pearce, 261 N.C. 760, 762, 136 S.E.2d 71. Their sales prices were not, therefore, a fair indication of market '* * * (E)vidence of amounts paid by......