Williams v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 40715
Citation | 110 Ga.App. 824,140 S.E.2d 150 |
Decision Date | 30 November 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 40715,40715,2 |
Parties | J. H. WILLIAMS v. COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Merritt & Pruitt, Glyndon C. Pruitt, Buford, for plaintiff in error.
Webb & Fowler, W. Howard Fowler, Lawrenceville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The condemnee assigns error on the overruling of a special ground of his motion for new trial complaining of the exclusion of testimony of a witness.
HELD:
This court held in its previous opinion, assuming without deciding that the excluded testimony was admissible, that the trial court did not commit harmful error in excluding the opinion testimony of a lay witness of the value of the property condemned and the consequential damages to the condemnee's remaining property, for the reason that the condemnee presented four other witnesses who testified as to their opinions of the condemnee's damages, and the opinion excluded was within the range of the valuations placed on the property by these four witnesses. Williams v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 109 Ga.App. 815, 137 S.E.2d 667. The Supreme Court reversed, this court's ruling on this point by holding that where the question is the value of land, and the evidence is conflicting, it is error to say that the exclusion of cumulative opinion evidence is harmless error. Williams v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 220 Ga. 381, 139 S.E.2d 308.
The question new before us is whether the trial court committed error in excluding the testimony of this witness. The witness testified on direct examination that he had examined the property and had been familiar with it for 3 or 4 years; that he had heard of sales in the area and knew what the property brought by talking to some of the people that had sold similar property, and from this information (sales of similar property) his opinion was that the reasonable market value of the condemnee's property when taken was $3,500 and that the damage to the condemnee's remaining property was $6,500. On cross examination the witness testified as to the use and condition of the property; and that the sales of property about which he had testified on direct examination were sales of property acquired by the Pipeline (the condemnor) for right of way, and that he was not familiar with any sales of property, other than sales to the condemnor, in that vicinity except in the town of Dacula, and that those were not property like the condemnee's. . Upon motion, the trial judge excluded the witness' testimony as to his opinion of the value of the easement taken and the consequential damages to the remaining property.
A non-expert witness ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeKalb County v. Queen
...Manis, 100 Ga.App. 423(3), 111 S.E.2d 747; Levsey v. County of Walton, 47 Ga.App. 211, 212, 170 S.E. 268; Cf. Williams v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 110 Ga.App. 824, 140 S.E.2d 150. Here the witness testified that he had been a building contractor, was familiar with houses and the value of prop......
-
Department of Transp. v. Brand, 57006
...416(3, 4), 77 S.E. 565 (1912); Gainesville Stone Co. v. Parker, 224 Ga. 819(6), 165 S.E.2d 296 (1968). Williams v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 110 Ga.App. 824, 825-826, 140 S.E.2d 150 (1964). The witness here demonstrated a familiarity with property values in the area, and it is clear that his o......
-
Schoolcraft v. DeKalb County
...v. Clark, 123 Ga.App. 627(4), 181 S.E.2d 881; City of Atlanta v. Layton, 123 Ga.App. 432(4), 181 S.E.2d 313; Williams v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 110 Ga.App. 824, 140 S.E.2d 150; Gainesville Stone Co. v. Parker, 224 Ga. 819, 821, 165 S.E.2d 296; Schumpert v. Carter, 175 Ga. 860(1), 166 S.E. 4......
-
Department of Transp. v. McLaughlin
...an opinion is for the trial court. Central Georgia Power Co. v. Cornwell, 139 Ga. 1, 5, 76 S.E. 387; Williams v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 110 Ga.App. 824, 826, 140 S.E.2d 150; Cordell Ford Co. v. Mullis, 121 Ga.App. 123(4), 173 S.E.2d 120; Dickens v. Adams, 137 Ga.App. 564(5), 224 S.E.2d 468.......