U.S. v. Goodloe

• Decision Date: 30 June 1920
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 227,228
• Citation: 86 So. 546,204 Ala. 484
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. GOODLOE et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

86 So. 546

204 Ala. 484

UNITED STATES v. GOODLOE et al.

8 Div. 227, 228

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; C.P. Almon, Judge.

Proceedings by the United States of America against Judith Goodloe and others and Mary Steele Figures and others, respectively, for the condemnation of certain lands, consolidated. From the judgment rendered, the United States appeals. Affirmed.

Erle Pettus, U.S. Dist. Atty., and Ralph W. Quinn and James Q Smith, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of Birmingham, for appellant.

London Yancey & Brower, of Birmingham, for appellees.

GARDNER J.

The property of appellees, of which the federal government took possession in 1917, was selected to be used in connection with the building of a nitrate plant in accordance with the act of Congress of June 3, 1916 (U.S. Stat. at Large, vol 39, p. 215). The government took possession of the property here in controversy in December, 1917, and condemnation proceedings, under the provisions of section 2413 et seq., Code 1907, were not begun until two years thereafter.

The property here involved was to be used in connection with plant No. 2, which was determined upon and located some two months after the location of plant No. 1. The evidence tends to show that the location of a second plant was unexpected, and was not at all a part of the general scheme when the first plant was designated. The evidence also tends to show an increase in property valuations in that community after the location of the first plant.

Counsel for the government requested numerous charges--one of which will appear in the statement of the case--to the effect that the jury were not to consider this enhanced value due to the location of the first plant.

We are of the opinion that such charge, under the tendencies of the evidence, was properly refused. The property was not used in connection with plant No. 1, and the establishment of this plant was but an improvement which had the effect of enhancing the value of property generally in that community, and no good reason is made to appear why these defendants would not have been entitled to this enhanced valuation. The case of Shoemaker v. U.S., 147 U.S. 282, 13 Sup.Ct. 361, 37 L.Ed. 170, has been very carefully examined, and, in our opinion, is easily distinguishable from the instant case. There a public park was to be located within a certain defined area and in a certain manner, and it was held that in fixing the valuation the commissioners were not to consider the value of the property by the establishment of the park. So in the instant case the jury could not consider, in fixing the valuation of the property here in question, that it was to become a part of the site for plant No. 2; but under the evidence above indicated this reasoning would have no application as to the location of plant No. 1, of which this property was not a part, and which, from this testimony, was not considered at that time.

Counsel for appellant very strenuously insist there was reversible error in giving the charge at the request of the defendants, to the effect that the jury will not be bound by the opinion of experts, which charge will appear in the report of the case. It is to be noted that the evidence in this case was confined solely to opinion testimony dealing entirely with the valuation of the property, and that it related to a matter as to which the jury are presumed to have some general knowledge. Under the decisions of this court this opinion evidence as to value was not conclusive and binding on the jury. Andrews v. Frierson, 144 Ala. 470, 39 So. 512; Sellers v. Knight, 185 Ala. 96, 64 So. 329; Tyson & Arrington v. Thompson, 195 Ala. 230, 70 So. 649; Robinson v. Crotwell, 175 Ala. 194, 57 So. 23. See, also, note to Fowle v. Parsons, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 181; Cleveland v. Wheeler, 8 Ala.App. 645, 62...