State Highway Dept. v. Whitehurst
| Decision Date | 05 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41479,No. 3,41479,3 |
| Citation | 146 S.E.2d 919,112 Ga.App. 877 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. James C. WHITEHURST |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In the absence of evidence authorizing the jury to find that land taken by condemnation was suitable for any use other than that to which the owner had devoted it when it was condemned, it was error to charge that the jury, in estimating its value, might consider other uses to which the land might be applied.
2. Where some parts of the testimony objected to were not irrelevant and the testimony of the witness was objected to in its entirety, the refusal to strike it upon condemnor's motion was not error.
The State Highway Department brought condemnation proceedings against James C. Whitehurst and others to acquire certain land owned by Whitehurst. Assessors were appointed, and after their award was filed in the office of the clerk of superior Court, the condemnor appealed for a jury trial. Upon trial of the appeal the jury returned a verdict awarding the condemnee the sum of $15,000. The condemnor excepts to the judgment of the trial court denying its amended motion for a new trial.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, E. J. Summerour, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, S. B. McCall, Adel, J. Lundie Smith, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Valdosta, Asa D. Kelley, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
1. Special ground 4 of the motion for new trial contends that the following charge was not authorized under the evidence: 'I charge you that in estimating the value of land when taken for public uses inquiry may be made as to all legitimate purposes to which the property could be appropriated and used, or to which it had been appropriated and used, and the jury shall assess the value of the property taken and used and the damages done. * * *
'In estimating its value the capabilities of the property and the use to which it is applied and to which it had been applied are to be considered, and not the mere condition it is in at the time and the use to which it is then applied by the owner.
'All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings and improvements and capabilities may be shown, and if shown, be considered by the jury in estimating its value.'
This charge is substantially the same as one held by this court to be unauthorized in a former appearance of this case. As in the prior case State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst, 109 Ga.App. 737, 739, 137 S.E.2d 371, again, the evidence here discloses nothing which would have authorized any finding that the property being condemned was suitable for any use other than that to which the owner had devoted it when it was condemned. The charge, being unauthorized by the evidence, was error. Central Ga. Power Co. v. Cornwell, 139 Ga. 1, 6, 76 S.E. 387; State Hwy. Dept. v. Weldon, 107 Ga.App. 98, 99(2), 129 S.E.2d 396; State Hwy. Dept. v. Allen, 108 Ga.App. 388(1), 133 S.E.2d 64...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Highway Dept. v. Harrison
...entire testimony of the witness, some of which is admissible, there is no error in overruling such motion. State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst, 112 Ga.App. 877, 879(2), 146 S.E.2d 919; State Hwy. Dept. v. Jackson, 100 Ga.App. 704, 705(2) 112 S.E.2d 356. Enumerated error No. 10 is without merit. ......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Edmunds
...State Hwy. Dept. v. Jackson, 100 Ga.App. 704, 112 S.E.2d 356; Mobley v. Bell, 177 Ga. 876, 878, 171 S.E. 701; State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst, 112 Ga.App. 877, 879, 146 S.E.2d 910. Moreover, it was stipulated that each of these witnesses was an expert, qualified to give his opinion as to the......
-
State Highway Dept. v. England
...by the evidence and was harmful error. State Hwy. Dept. v. Rutland, 112 Ga.App. 792(1), 146 S.E.2d 544; State Highway Dept. v. Whitehurst, 112 Ga.App. 877, 878(1), 146 S.E.2d 919. 2. The remaining enumeration of error, complaining of the admission of certain evidence over objection, is with......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Edmunds, 42392
...each witness was objected to in its entirety, the refusal to strike it upon condemnor's motion was not error. State Highway Dept. v. Whitehurst, 112 Ga.App. 877(2), 146 S.E.2d 919; State Highway Dept. v. Edmunds, 113 Ga.App. 550(2), 149 S.E.2d 2. Enumerations of error 2 and 3, relating to m......