Pryor v. Limestone County

• Decision Date: 16 April 1931
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 202.
• Citation: 134 So. 17,222 Ala. 621
• Parties: PRYOR ET AL. v. LIMESTONE COUNTY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

134 So. 17

222 Ala. 621

PRYOR ET AL. v. LIMESTONE COUNTY.

8 Div. 202.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 16, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; W. W. Callahan, Judge.

Condemnation proceeding by Limestone County against Lutie Patton Pryor individually and as guardian of Martha Pryor, Luke Pryor, and Schuyler Pryor, minors. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

E. W Godbey, of Decatur, for appellants.

R. B Patton, of Athens, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Defendants in this proceeding are owners of a tract of land in Limestone county consisting of thirty-two hundred acres, through which runs what is known as the Bee Line highway for a distance of three miles. For improvement of the old highway, and when it became what is referred to as a "State project," it was considered necessary to widen the road at this location and also elevate it to prevent overflow during the flood season, and to this end condemnation of a strip of land owned by defendants about two thousand feet in length, and comprising in all three acres, some of which contained gravel, became essential, to be used largely in widening ditches on each side of the road.

There was evidence to the effect that defendants' remaining land was enhanced in value far in excess of the value of the land taken or any damages sustained, while there was proof also to the contrary that there had been no increase in value, and that compensation for the land taken should be as much as $700. Upon a trial of the cause in the circuit court, the jury awarded defendants no damages, and from the judgment following they have prosecuted this appeal.

In the recent case of McRea v. Marion County (Ala. Sup.) 133 So. 278, present term, it was held (following the lead of Town of Eutaw v. Botnick, 150 Ala. 429, 43 So. 739) that in proceedings of this character it was proper for the jury to consider the general, as well as the special, benefits accruing to the owner's remaining lands by reason of the improved highway, in considering the matter of deduction from the damages sustained.

A number of assignments of error, including the denial of the motion for a new trial, are based upon the theory that only special benefits may be so considered, and therefore, in the light of the foregoing authority, need no separate treatment here.

In the McRea Case, supra, the owners' remaining lands consisted of six hundred and twenty acres in a body, and in the instant case the land likewise comprises one large tract, all contiguous-the only difference being in the size of the tract-both tracts being used and chiefly valuable for farming purposes. In consideration of the question of benefits to the remaining lands, the court treated the same as referable to the entire tract, and not as confined to the land abutting upon the improved highway. A like rule is applicable to the instant case, and assignments of error based upon a contrary view are therefore not well taken. McRea v. Marion County ...