Seaboard Coast Line R. R. v. Harrelson, 19754

• Decision Date: 10 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 19754,19754
• Citation: 262 S.C. 38,202 S.E.2d 1
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD, Appellant, v. James W. HARRELSON, Respondent.

Page 1

202 S.E.2d 1

262 S.C. 38

SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD, Appellant, v. James W. HARRELSON, Respondent.

No. 19754.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 10, 1974.

Moore, Flowers & Doar, Georgetown, for appellant.

J. Reuben Long, Conway, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad commenced this condemnation proceeding pursuant to § 58--771 et seq. of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1962) to obtain a right-of-way across a tract of land in Georgetown County owned by James W. Harrelson. Seaboard has appealed from a jury verdict in favor of Harrelson for $20,000.00, alleging error in the admission of certain evidence.

Prior to the condemnation, Harrelson's property, located about eight miles southeast of the city of Georgetown, contained 83.9 acres. It was bounded on the east by Pennyroyal Creek and was situate one-half mile south of State Highway 22--42, locally referred to as Pennyroyal Road. Access to this tract from Pennyroyal Road was by an unimproved county road.

The right-of-way, within which Seaboard will construct, maintain, and operate a track to service a power plant being constructed by the South Carolina Public Service Authority, contained 2.6 acres. It crossed Harrelson's property in an eastwest direction and divided it into two parcels of 50 and 33 acres, approximately. It extended 1295 feet in length and varied in width from 80 to 100 feet.

Via consent order of the court, the necessity of empaneling a clerk's jury in accordance with § 58--777 was waived, and Seaboard was permitted to gain possession of the condemned area upon payment into court of $5,200.00; however, the right of either party to ask for a trial de novo was preserved. In due course, Harrelson served notice of his desire to have the matter so determined.

Harrelson was the only witness who testified in his behalf relative to the highest and best use of his property. He testified that up until the time of this condemnation he was excavating coquina and other salable materials from the area within the right-of-way, in the process of which he would be developing his property. He indicated that he had intended to excavate the entire creek bed, the result of which would have been a 20 to 25 acre lake which connected with Pennyroyal Creek. He further testified that this plan of development would now have to be altered because the proposed lake would be divided by the right-of-way. In his opinion, the value of the condemned area was $68,266.00 and the remainder of his property had been specially damaged in the sum of $30,000.00.

It is Seaboard's position that Harrelson's testimony should have been excluded from the jury's consideration because his intended use was too remote and speculative and because his estimate of value and damages was bottomed upon profits derived from the sale of materials excavated from his property in the normal course of his business. While this...