State Highway Dept. v. Baxter

• Decision Date: 23 February 1965
• Docket Number: No. 41058,No. 3,41058,3
• Citation: 111 Ga.App. 230,141 S.E.2d 236
• Parties: STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. Edwin L. BAXTER et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 236

141 S.E.2d 236

111 Ga.App. 230

STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. Edwin L. BAXTER et al.

No. 41058.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Feb. 23, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

When there was no evidence that a witness had any knowledge or information or experience affording him an opportunity to form a correct opinion of the market value of a tract of idle land suitable for development as a cemetery, his opinion of the value of the land for the use of developing a cemetery was not admissible in evidence in a condemnation case.

This was a proceeding pursuant to Code Ch. 36-11 for the condemnation of 4.827 acres of land in Catoosa County. The appointed assessors awarded $22,000.00 to the condemnee. The State Highway Department, condemnor, appealed to a jury, and the first trial resulted in a verdict and judgment of $65,000. The present trial followed an affirmance by this court of the grant of a new trial by the superior court. Baxter v. State Highway Department, 108 Ga.App. 324, 132 S.E.2d 863. Witnesses for the condemnor testified as to the value of the property as agricultural land, and gave opinions of its value as $1,448, $1,930.80, and $1,689.45. Witnesses for the condemnee testified that they considered the best use of the land to be for cemetery development and gave opinions of its value as $125,000, $140,000, $150,000, and $170,000. The jury awarded a verdict of $74,954.00. The condemnor in its motion for new trial assigned error on rulings of the trial court upon the admissibility of evidence, including the refusal of the court to exclude testimony of the condemnee's witnesses as to their opinions of the value of the property taken. In this court the condemnor assigns error on the judgment of the trial court overruling its motion for new trial.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, F. H. Boney, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Summerville, Joe B. Tucker, Ringgold, for plaintiff in error.

John E. Wiggins, Ringgold, for defendants in error.

HALL, Judge.

On the date the property was condemned, its condition was that of idle farm land. However, the evidence showed that the property was suitable for development as a cemetery, and the condemnee's witnesses appraised it and gave their opinions of the market value of the 4.827 acres of land taken with this use in mind. One of the witnesses whose testimony is complained of in Ground 27, had been a funeral director for 33 years and in his experience in burying the dead had gained some knowledge about the kind of land suitable for graves, suitable locations for cemeteries, and the size and value of grave lots in cemeteries. He gave an opinion of the market value of the tract of land taken that he had arrived at by ascertaining the number of burial lots it could be divided into and multiplying this number by a price of one burial lot and taking fifty percent of the resulting figure. He testified that he had had no experience with and knew nothing about the price paid for any land to be developed for a cemetery.

There was no evidence that this witness had any knowledge of or experience in the business of real estate development, or cemetery development and the costs of improving and caring for cemeteries and sales of burial lots, or that he was a specialist of any kind to qualify him as an expert witness on these subjects.

A witness, though not an expert, may testify to value if it affirmatively appears that he has had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion based on knowledge of the subject matter of the inquiry. Central Georgia Power Co. v. Cornwell, 139 Ga. 1, 4, 76 S.E. 387. Accordingly, the admission of opinions of non-expert witnesses as to the value of farm land, when the evidence showed that they had some...