State Highway Dept. v. Lumpkin, No. 23730
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Horace E. Campbell, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Edwin Fortson, Athens; QUILLIAN; All the Justices concur, except CANDLER, P.J., and MOBLEY; COOK; MOBLEY |
| Citation | 222 Ga. 727,152 S.E.2d 557 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23730 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. Mrs. Quinton LUMPKIN. |
Page 557
v.
Mrs. Quinton LUMPKIN.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1966.
Page 558
[222 Ga. 730] Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Horace E. Campbell, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Edwin Fortson, Athens, J. Patrick Ward, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Erwin, Birchmore & Epting, Eugene A. Epting, Athens, for defendant in error.
Harold Sheats, Paul H. Anderson, Atlanta, for party at interest not party to record.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
[222 Ga. 727] QUILLIAN, Justice.
This case arose upon the condemnation by the Highway Department of the right of way for the purpose of constructing a limited access highway through the lands of Mrs. Lumpkin. This divided her lands into two separate parcels situated on opposite sides of the proposed highway. The Highway Department in its declaration of taking of the condemnee's land declared: 'The title, estate, or interest in the above described lands, required by condemnor and now taken by condemnor for public use is as follows-Fee simple title to the above described lands and all rights of access between the limited access highway and approaches thereto on the above numbered highway and all remaining real property of the condemnee as shown on (an attached plat).' In its petition the Highway Department sought to condemn '12.304 acres of land and access rights in the land abutting' and alleged: 'Petitioner also seeks to acquire by condemnation any and all right of access in, to, and upon the right of way herein described except as permitted or allowed by the State Highway Department of [222 Ga. 728] Georgia, as authorized by Georgia Laws 1955, pp. 559 et seq.; Petitioner stands ready to pay just and adequate compensation for said right of way, easements, and acces rights as described in the declaration of taking attached hereto as (an exhibit).' The trial judge charged the jury, 'it is you duty in this case to award to the condemnee fair and adequate compensation for the three tracts of land taken and for the easements of access taken on May 3, 1963, as disclosed by the evidence,' and later granted the condemnor's motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence adduced upon the trial did not authorize the charge. The Court of Appeals reversed and, in substance, held that the condemnor was bound by the averments of the petition that the access rights were condemned, that the burden was upon the condemnor to prove the case as laid in its petition and that if no evidence was submitted concerning the issue the condemnor could not complain. Lumpkin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, No. 63591
...v. State Highway Department, 119 Ga.App. 505, 167 S.E.2d 722, this Court, in discussing the effect of State Highway Department v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 made the following observations. "However, condemnee's right of access was a right appurtenant to those portions of the land......
-
William Goldberg & Co., Inc. v. Cohen, Nos. A95A1188
...thoughts" after executing the documents. Since a pleader is bound by the allegations in his own pleadings, State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966), WGC may not now claim the contrary is true. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment to Jay and the estate on......
-
Aycock v. Calk, No. A97A1678
...S.E.2d 626 (1969). What a party admits to be true in his pleadings, he is not permitted subsequently to deny. State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966), rev'd on other grounds, Dept. of Transp. v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 361, 201 S.E.2d 441 (1973). When admissions in judi......
-
Wahnschaff v. Erdman, No. A98A0786.
...to contradict such admissions. See Reynolds v. Reynolds' Estate, 238 Ga. 1, 3, 230 S.E.2d 842 (1976); State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 728, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966); Ditch v. Royal Indem. Co., 205 Ga. App. 478, 479, 422 S.E.2d 868 (1992); Strozier v. Simmons U.S.A. Corp., 192 Ga.App. ......
-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, No. 63591
...v. State Highway Department, 119 Ga.App. 505, 167 S.E.2d 722, this Court, in discussing the effect of State Highway Department v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 made the following observations. "However, condemnee's right of access was a right appurtenant to those portions of the land......
-
William Goldberg & Co., Inc. v. Cohen, Nos. A95A1188
...thoughts" after executing the documents. Since a pleader is bound by the allegations in his own pleadings, State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966), WGC may not now claim the contrary is true. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment to Jay and the estate on......
-
Aycock v. Calk, No. A97A1678
...S.E.2d 626 (1969). What a party admits to be true in his pleadings, he is not permitted subsequently to deny. State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966), rev'd on other grounds, Dept. of Transp. v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 361, 201 S.E.2d 441 (1973). When admissions in judi......
-
Wahnschaff v. Erdman, No. A98A0786.
...to contradict such admissions. See Reynolds v. Reynolds' Estate, 238 Ga. 1, 3, 230 S.E.2d 842 (1976); State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 728, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966); Ditch v. Royal Indem. Co., 205 Ga. App. 478, 479, 422 S.E.2d 868 (1992); Strozier v. Simmons U.S.A. Corp., 192 Ga.App. ......