Wheeler v. State Highway Commission, No. 38058
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | ALEXANDER; HALL |
| Citation | 55 So.2d 225,212 Miss. 606 |
| Docket Number | No. 38058 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1951 |
| Parties | WHEELER et ux. v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. |
Page 225
v.
STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
Page 226
[212 Miss. 608] Ramon L. Burgess, Tupelo, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen. by [212 Miss. 611] Mathew Harper, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Kuykendall, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.
[212 Miss. 612] ALEXANDER, Justice.
The State Highway Commission, by eminent domain proceedings, expropriated for highway purposes 3.6 acres of land belonging to appellants. There was an original award of nine hundred dollars, and upon appeal to the circuit court a like award was made.
The assignments of error argued are (1) the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; (2) exclusion of certain testimony; (3) errors in instructions; and (4) improper argument to the jury.
The first assignment. The testimony as to damage ranged from $742.50 to $3,500. The former figure was estimated by an engineer employed by appellee who detailed the several items of damage. The latter estimate was made by the appellants who did not itemize their appraisals but explained in general terms that this was a lump sum based upon what the land was worth to them. Other witnesses for appellants stated their estimates in like manner. Some witnesses stated generally that their estimates were based upon the value of the land before and after the taking, although all were stated 'in a lump sum', without elaboration.
A view of the premises was requested and the jury made an inspection. In view of all these considerations, we find no substantial basis for displacing the award. Smith v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 183 Miss. 741, 184 So. 814.
The second assignment. The witness, M. L. White, was questioned as to the future plans of the Commission with regard to maintaining the existing highway which ran in front of the property of appellants. [212 Miss. 613] The court sustained an objection thereto. There was no error here. There was no testimony as to anticipated loss of business by the owners who operated a store on the premises. Moreover, the Commission is authorized to relocate highways in the public interest and is under no duty to maintain the old route. Wilkinson County v. State Highway Commission, 191 Miss. 750, 4 So.2d 298. Furthermore, the Commission is without authority to agree with a county to maintain an existing highway indefinitely. Upon its abandonment the former road reverts to the county. It is not liable in damages for such abandonment. Quin v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 194
Page 227
Miss. 411, 11 So.2d 810. There remained reasonable access to both the old and the new routes. Recognition is not denied to the right of a landowner in a proper case to recover for a direct damage occasioned by actual impairment of ingress, yet this is a factor to be taken in account in applying the 'before and after' rule.The third assignment. It is complained that the trial court erred in excluding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n, No. 53493
...the ultimate issue is the extent of their cumulative impact upon such total valuation.' Wheeler v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 212 Miss. 606, 55 So.2d 225." (242 Miss. at 219-200 [sic], 134 So.2d at * * * Page 819 " 'It should repeatedly be emphasized that subjects which are relev......
-
State Highway Com'n of Mississippi v. Havard, No. 56512
...Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hall, 252 Miss. at 874-75, 174 So.2d at 492; Wheeler v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 212 Miss. 606, 55 So.2d Parenthetically, we consider that a combined reading of Instruction Nos. P-5 1 and D-2 2 more than adequately explain to the jury the......
-
Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Bridgforth, No. 96-CA-00926-SCT
...the fact that, in setting forth the "fully informed" standard in Bear Creek, this Court approvingly cited Wheeler v. State Highway Comm., 212 Miss. 606, 55 So.2d 225 (1951) and Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Hillman, 189 Miss. 850, 198 So. 565 (1940). This Court in Wheeler held that "[t......
-
Dear v. Madison County By and Through Madison County Bd. of Sup'rs, No. 91-CA-0627
...mentioned in Potters II. These include the authority to relocate roads and highways, Wheeler v. State Highway Commission of Mississippi, 212 Miss. 606, 55 So.2d 225 (1951), and the exercise of its police powers through the regulation of traffic control and designation of access, Muse v. Mis......
-
Smith v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n, No. 53493
...the ultimate issue is the extent of their cumulative impact upon such total valuation.' Wheeler v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 212 Miss. 606, 55 So.2d 225." (242 Miss. at 219-200 [sic], 134 So.2d at * * * Page 819 " 'It should repeatedly be emphasized that subjects which are relev......
-
State Highway Com'n of Mississippi v. Havard, No. 56512
...Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hall, 252 Miss. at 874-75, 174 So.2d at 492; Wheeler v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 212 Miss. 606, 55 So.2d Parenthetically, we consider that a combined reading of Instruction Nos. P-5 1 and D-2 2 more than adequately explain to the jury the......
-
Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Bridgforth, No. 96-CA-00926-SCT
...the fact that, in setting forth the "fully informed" standard in Bear Creek, this Court approvingly cited Wheeler v. State Highway Comm., 212 Miss. 606, 55 So.2d 225 (1951) and Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Hillman, 189 Miss. 850, 198 So. 565 (1940). This Court in Wheeler held that "[t......
-
Dear v. Madison County By and Through Madison County Bd. of Sup'rs, No. 91-CA-0627
...mentioned in Potters II. These include the authority to relocate roads and highways, Wheeler v. State Highway Commission of Mississippi, 212 Miss. 606, 55 So.2d 225 (1951), and the exercise of its police powers through the regulation of traffic control and designation of access, Muse v. Mis......