State Highway Dept. v. Ford, No. 41544
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | PANNELL; NICHOLS, P. J., and EBERHARDT |
| Citation | 144 S.E.2d 924,112 Ga.App. 270 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. Jack FORD et al |
| Decision Date | 16 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 41544 |
Page 924
v.
Jack FORD et al.
Page 925
[112 Ga.App. 272] Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Horace E. Campbell, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, William L. Preston, Monroe, for plaintiff in error.
D. M. Pollock, Monroe, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
[112 Ga.App. 270] PANNELL, Judge.
1. In a condemnation case, wherein the State Highway Department was condemning a tract of land for use [112 Ga.App. 271] as a highway, the court gave the following charge: 'I charge you, gentlemen, that there has been submitted to you evidence as to the present plans of the State of Georgia, as to the use to be made of the property condemned. I charge you in this connection that the State is bound by the boundaries of the land acquired by it and by the location of the limit of access lines as those that are disclosed in the pleadings. But I charge you further that the State is not bound now, or in the future, to follow the plans presently in existence as to the use to be made of the property condemned, but that these plans may be changed at any time so long as the land condemned is used for public road purposes and the construction of the road or roads for which it is used is done in a prudent and proper manner.' This charge was not subject to the exception that it was confusing and misleading to the jury, in that from said charge, the jury could reach a conclusion that the condemnor could, by changing its plans, acquire additional property from the condemnee without having to pay just and adequate compensation therefor; nor was said charge unsound as an abstract principle of law.
2. Where land is condemned for use as a new limited access highway the condemnee is not entitled to damages, actual or consequential, for lack of access to said new highway by reason of any rights of easement for ingress and egress to and from said highway. See § 2, Act of 1955, pp. 559, 560 (Code Ann. § 95-1701a) which provides that there shall be no right of ingress and egress to and from a limited access highway 'by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited-access highway or for any other reason.' See also, 3 Nichols, Eminent Domain, 3rd Ed., § 10.2211(2); Schnider v. State, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068; People v. Thomas, 108 Cal.App.2d 832, 239 P.2d 914;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lumpkin v. State Highway Dept., No. 41850
...to the proposed limited access highway. Grant of the new trial was squarely upon the authority of State Highway Department v. Ford, 112 Ga.App. 270, 144 S.E.2d Pretermitting the matter of whether the condemnee has access rights that must be condemned in the taking of his land for a limited ......
-
Johnson v. United States, No. 439-69.
...may not be awarded to landowners even where this may constitute a lack of consequential benefit. See State Highway Dept. v. Ford, 112 Ga. App. 270, 144 S.E.2d 924 (1965) and cases cited therein. Although cases such as Ford are concerned in part with the validity of state statutes pertaining......
-
Klumok v. State Highway Dept., No. 44046
...to go upon and across the proposed highway.' State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 729, 152 S.E.2d 557. In State Hwy. Dept. v. Ford, 112 Ga.App. 270(2), 144 S.E.2d 924, this court held that where land is condemned for use as a limited access highway the condemnee is not entitled to dama......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Geehr, No. 41548
...665] 2. Special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for new trial are controlled by the decision of this court in State Highway Dept. v. Ford, 112 Ga.App. 270, 144 S.E.2d 924 in which error was assigned for the same reasons upon charges of the court identical with the charges attacked in these Th......
-
Lumpkin v. State Highway Dept., No. 41850
...to the proposed limited access highway. Grant of the new trial was squarely upon the authority of State Highway Department v. Ford, 112 Ga.App. 270, 144 S.E.2d Pretermitting the matter of whether the condemnee has access rights that must be condemned in the taking of his land for a limited ......
-
Johnson v. United States, No. 439-69.
...may not be awarded to landowners even where this may constitute a lack of consequential benefit. See State Highway Dept. v. Ford, 112 Ga. App. 270, 144 S.E.2d 924 (1965) and cases cited therein. Although cases such as Ford are concerned in part with the validity of state statutes pertaining......
-
Klumok v. State Highway Dept., No. 44046
...to go upon and across the proposed highway.' State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 729, 152 S.E.2d 557. In State Hwy. Dept. v. Ford, 112 Ga.App. 270(2), 144 S.E.2d 924, this court held that where land is condemned for use as a limited access highway the condemnee is not entitled to dama......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Geehr, No. 41548
...665] 2. Special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for new trial are controlled by the decision of this court in State Highway Dept. v. Ford, 112 Ga.App. 270, 144 S.E.2d 924 in which error was assigned for the same reasons upon charges of the court identical with the charges attacked in these Th......