Sunday v. Louisville & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1912
• Citation: 62 Fla. 395,57 So. 351
• Parties: SUNDAY et al. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

57 So. 351

62 Fla. 395

SUNDAY et al. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

January 8, 1912

rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1912.

In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County; J. Emmett Wolfe, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. From the award of compensation, John Sunday and Charles A Born bring error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The provision of the Constitution that, in condemnation proceedings by a corporation or individual, the owner of the property shall receive 'full compensation * * * irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation or individual,' does not deny to the owner any real and reasonable enhancement in the market value of the property to be appropriated by reason of 'any improvement proposed.' If the property naturally, or in common with other property similarly conditioned, increases in market value in anticipation of the proposed improvement before the appropriation, the compensation therefor is the fair actual market value at the time of the lawful appropriation.

COUNSEL Jones & Pasco, for plaintiff's in error.

Blount & Blount & Carter, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C.J.

In condemnation proceeding, a judgment for $4,000 was rendered as compensation for the property. The defendants took a writ of error, and contend that the compensation is insufficient.

At the trial the court, at the request of the petitioner, charged the jury that, 'In fixing the market value of the property, the jury are not authorized to take into consideration the enhancement in the value of the property if any, caused by the proposed improvement of the property for depot or right of way purposes by the railroad company. The market value, irrespective of the proposed improvement is the measure of just compensation to be awarded by the jury.' This charge was excepted to, and is assigned and argued as error. Other charges were given; but they do not sufficiently correct the apparent error in the quoted charge, so that it may fairly be said that the jury, in view of the testimony, could not reasonably have been misled by the quoted charge. The charges given at the request of the defendants are not in effect similar to the quoted charge complained of by them.

Section 29 of article 16 of the Constitution ordains that: 'No private property nor right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation or individual until full compensation therefor shall be first made to the owner, or first secured to him by deposit of money; which compensation irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation or individual, shall be a certained...