State v. Central of Georgia R. Co.

Decision Date27 February 1975
Citation293 Ala. 675,309 So.2d 452
PartiesThe STATE of Alabama v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, et al. SC 687.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Jack W. Smith, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Dothan, for appellant.

Lee & McInish, Merrill & Harrison, Dothan, for appellees.

MADDOX, Justice.

The State appeals from a condemnation award. Counsel for the State urges two points for reversal: (1) lay witnesses were allowed to testify as to value of the two condemned tracts, and (2) the verdict was excessive.

We have examined the record and find that each of the lay witnesses testified that they were generally familiar with the property and each stated that he had an opinion as to the value of the parcels. A person is competent to give his opinion as to value if he has had an opportunity to form a correct opinion and testifies, in substance, that he has done so. State v. Woodham, 292 Ala. 363, 294 So.2d 740 (1974). The jury weighs the value of the testimony of such witnesses. State v. Johnson, 268 Ala. 11, 104 So.2d 915 (1958).

The State's argument that the verdict is excessive is not persuasive either. The verdict was within the range of the highest value placed on the land by the landowner's witnesses and the lowest value put thereon by witnesses for the State. See State of Alabama v. Wise Development Co. (decided February 27, 1975), 293 Ala. 671, 309 So.2d 448.

In condemnation cases the conclusion of the trier of fact is to be given great weight. State v. Rigas, 282 Ala. 541, 213 So.2d 386 (1968). In Rountree Farm Co. v. Morgan County, 249 Ala. 472, 31 So.2d 346 (1947), this Court said:

'In condemnation cases there is often, as here, a wide divergence of opinion of witnesses as to values and items of damage. Claims by the property owner are sometimes exaggerated, and on the other hand are frequently minimized by the condemnor, both usually acting in good faith. The jury trying the issue must arrive at its verdict by reconciling the various opinions as best it can, and must analyze the evidence in the light of its common knowledge.' 249 Ala. at 476, 31 So.2d at 350.

The jury verdict is fairly supported by the evidence. State v. Woodham, supra. There is no reversible error in the record. We affirm.


HEFLIN, C.J., and MERRILL, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Long
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1977
    ...within this wide range would not be excessive. Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738 (1890); State v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 293 Ala. 675, 309 So.2d 452 (1975); State v. Wise Development Corp., 293 Ala. 671, 309 So.2d 448 (1975); State v. Walker, 281 Ala. 182, 200 So.2d 482 (......
  • Florence v. Williams
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1983
    ...In condemnation proceedings, moreover, the conclusion of the trier of fact is entitled to great weight. State v. Central of Georgia R.R., 293 Ala. 675, 309 So.2d 452 (1975). Yet how do these presumptions apply where the probate judge, exercising jurisdiction under Code 1975, § 18-1-1, and t......
  • State v. Colley Corp.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1976
  • State v. Steele
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1979
    ...upon excessiveness would be an invasion of the province of the jury. As this Court recently stated in State v. Central of Georgia Railroad Co., 293 Ala. 675, 309 So.2d 452 (1975), quoting from Roundtree Farm Co. v. Morgan County, 249 Ala. 472 at 476, 21 So.2d "In condemnation cases there is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT