Palmer v. North Carolina State Highway Comm'n
| Decision Date | 31 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 592.) |
| Citation | 141 S.E. 338,195 N.C. 1 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | PALMER et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cherokee County; Stock, Judge.
Action by B. B. Palmer and another against the North Carolina State Highway Commission. From a judgment awarding damages, both parties appealed to the superior court. From a judgment awarding damages there rendered, petitioners appeal. No error.
The plaintiffs instituted an action against the defendant for damages for the taking of land upon which there was a store building. The property was taken by the defendant in the construction of a highway. Appraisers were duly appointed, who assessed the damages sustained by plaintiffs. From the judgment rendered by the clerk, both parties appealed to the superior court. In the superior court an issue of damages was submitted to the jury, and the verdict of the jury awarded damages in the sum of $S75. From judgment upon the verdict, the petitioners appealed.
J. D. Mallonee and Moody & Moody, all of Murphy, for appellants.
Charles Ross, of Raleigh, for appellee.
BROGDEN, J. [1] This cause presents in the main only issues of fact which the jury has determined. The main item of damage claimed by the plaintiffs was the destruction of a store building. The store building had never been rented out, but the sons of plaintiffs used the building for mercantile purposes, with the understanding that the plaintiffs were to have their supplies at wholesale price in lieu of a stipulated rental. On cross-examination the plaintiff was asked whether or not the business had been prosperous. The plaintiff objected to this question and answer, and excepted to the action of the trial judge in permitting the evidence. This exception cannot be sustained. Rental value of property is competent upon the question of the fair market value of property at the time of the taking. Brown v. Power Co., 140 N. C. 333, 52 S. E. 954, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 912. If the plaintiffs were to receive a part of the stock of merchandise in lieu of rental, the amount of stock carried or the volume of business would be a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining what return the plaintiffs were receiving for the property at the time of taking.
[2, 3J Plaintiffs further testified on cross-examination that they did not build the building upon the premises; that the building was upon the land at the time they purchased it, about 18 years ago. Thereupon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Transp. v. M.M. Fowler, Inc.
...value of the property at the time of the taking." 257 N.C. at 432, 126 S.E.2d at 110 (emphasis added) (citing Palmer v. N.C. State Highway Comm'n, 195 N.C. 1, 141 S.E. 338 (1928)); see also Ross v. Perry, 281 N.C. 570, 575, 189 S.E.2d 226, 229 (1972) ("In determining [a property's] fair mar......
-
TD Bank, N.A. v. Jay Jala Bapa, L.L.C., 1:16cv823
...had owned the property for 18 years, and that the building [in question] was then upon the property." Palmer v. North Carolina State Highway Comm'n, 1925 N.C. 1, 141 S.E. 338, 339 (1928). Here, Rana asserts that the Motel Property remained largely unchanged during its ownership by LLC Defen......
-
North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Nuckles, 688
...the price at which it was bought, if the sale was voluntary, and not too remote in point of time.' Palmer v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 195 N.C. 1, 2, 141 S.E. 338, 339. 'The reasonableness of the time is dependent upon the nature of the property, its location, and the surroun......
-
Heath v. Mosley
...262 N.C. 25, 136 S.E.2d 265 (1964); Redevelopment Commission v. Hinkle, 260 N.C. 423, 132 S.E.2d 761 (1963); Palmer v. Highway Commission, 195 N.C. 1, 141 S.E. 338 (1928); Potts v. Motor Co., 191 N.C. 821, 131 S.E. 739 (1926) (see Southeastern cite for complete report of this case); Wilson ......