State Highway Dept. v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 07 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23552,23552 |
| Citation | 222 Ga. 354,149 S.E.2d 788 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. H. G. ALEXANDER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
1. The court's ruling that the issue of dedication be first determined was not error.
2. In view of 4, infra, it is not necessary to decide whether the question called for a conclusion of the witness.
3. The question was subject to the objection that the plat referred to was not in evidence; exclusion of the plat was proper since it was not authenticated.
4. Direction of the verdict that there had been no dedication was not erroneous.
George P. Dillard, Herbert O. Edwards, Robert E. Mozley, Decatur, for appellant.
Cobb & Cobb, Edward D. Wheeler, Decatur, for appellees.
Rulings made in an appeal for a jury trial from the award of assessors in a condemnation proceeding are enumerated as error. They arose from a petition filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County by the State Highway Department of Georgia against the property itself, H. G. Alexander, and others, to obtain the right of way for widening a State-aid public road.
The petition recited that the condemnor believed the property was owned by it and DeKalb County, but that certain parties, named as defendants, might claim an interest therein. However, none but Alexander asserted any claim. The county answered by asserting that the property had previously been dedicated to public use as a road and sidewalk. Both the Condemnor and Alexander appealed for a jury trial from the assessors' award.
Upon the appeal the court ruled that the case should proceed to trial upon only the issue of dedication, with submission of the question of value dependent on the outcome of that issue. At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict that there had been no dedication.
The condemnor enumerates as error the court's ruling that the issue of dedication be tried separately, three rulings as to the admissibility of evidence, and the direction of a verdict of no dedication.
1. The condemnor will not be heard to domplain that the trial court erred in directing that the issue of dedication be first determined. The transcript of the proceedings shows that counsel for both sides were invited to express their views as to this mode of procedure and that both expressly agreed to it.
2. We deal now with the first of the rulings as to admissibility of evidence. The condemnee was asked if any of the land described in one of the condemnor's exhibits was land which he formerly used as parking for his customers. He answered 'Yes.' The objection was that whether he used it as parking for his customers was a conclusion, since the issue was whether the public used it.
It is not necessary to decide this question in view of the ruling in Division 4, infra, as to the parking area portion of the land sought by the condemnor.
3. The other two rulings as to admissibility of evidence may be treated together since they relate to the same document. Upon direct examination, the condemnor asked its witness if he could, by reference to one of its exhibits, a plat, state whether or not the present sidewalks had been constructed as delineated and shown on such plat. The condemnee's objection to the question on the ground that the plat was not in evidence was sustained. This ruling was correct.
Subsequently, the condemnor offered this plat in evidence, but upon objection it was not admitted. We regard this ruling as proper, since there was no evidence as to who made the plat or whether it was correct. See Code § 38-701 and annotations.
4. Considering now the enumerations complaining of direction of the verdict that there had been no dedication of the land described in the petition to DeKalb County for public purposes, we are of the view that they are not meritorious.
The land in question was a strip between the old paved portion of the road and certain buildings owned by the condemnee. One portion of this strip, contiguous to the buildings, had been paved for and used as a sidewalk; the other part, between the sidewalk area and the road, had been paved, marked off, and used as parking spaces. The condemnee testified that he had a number of years ago paved these areas for the use of the customers of his building tenants, that he had marked off the parking spaces in that area, and that he had maintained both areas. There was evidence that the county had done some patching of the parking area and had put up some signs limiting parking to two hours. But there was no question but what, if these areas had been dedicated, the dedication was for sidewalk and parking purposes, respectively.
The condemnor sought the entire strip as a right of way for a State-aid road....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheek v. Floyd County, Georgia, Civ. A. No. 1921.
...here seeks to recover damages for loss of parking spaces as such. For such claim, the plaintiff relies on State Highway Dept. v. Alexander, 222 Ga. 354, 149 S.E.2d 788 (1966). However, examination of the facts there shows that the point at issue was just compensation for an area previously ......
-
Swiney v. State Highway Dept.
...must show that the plat is correct and is a fair representation of what it purports to show. Code § 38-701; State Hwy. Dept. v. Alexander, 222 Ga. 354(3), 149 S.E.2d 788; Hammett v. Thompson, 115 Ga.App. 762(2), 156 S.E.2d 190. It is true that, as stated in Clarke County School District v. ......
-
Levine v. Wyatt
...§ 56-3403b (b). Appellant was required to present her case in accordance with the pretrial stipulation. See State Highway Dept. v. Alexander, 222 Ga. 354, 149 S.E.2d 788 (1966); Interstate N. Associates v. Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., 138 Ga.App. 487, 488(1), 226 S.E.2d 315 (1976). Thus, having s......
- Mathis v. State, 23546