Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Jennings

• Citation: 43 So. 469,90 Miss. 93
• Parties: YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. EPSEY JENNINGS ET AL
• Decision Date: 08 April 1907
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

43 So. 469

90 Miss. 93

YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. EPSEY JENNINGS ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 8, 1907

March 1907

FROM the circuit court of, second district, Tallahatchie county HON. SAMUEL C. COOK, Judge.

The Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, the appellant was the applicant in eminent domain proceedings against Epsey Jennings and another, the appellees. Both parties appealed from the judgment of the special eminent domain court to the circuit court.

On the trial in the circuit court there was evidence for the landowners to the effect that while the actual value of the land to be expropriated was from $ 100 to $ 125 an acre, the consequential damages were very considerable on account of the peculiar lay of the land and the manner in which it would be traversed by the railroad track. Appellees claimed damages because of the probability that their livestock would be killed by railroad trains, because of interference with drainage likely to result from insufficient culverts, the scattering of noxious grasses, and because the passage of the trains would make mules run away and disturb laborers causing them to stop work and look at passing trains. The opinion further states the facts.

The jury in the circuit court awarded a verdict for the appellees, jointly, in the sum of $ 10,000 for the taking of the lands by the railroad company; and from a judgment based thereon the railroad company appealed to the supreme court.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Mayes & Longstreet, for appellant.

The verdict of the jury of $ 10,000 in favor of the two landowners as compensation for the appellant's taking sixteen and a fraction acres of land is grossly excessive in any view of the case. We think it will not be denied that the actual value of the land to be taken, as established by the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, is not less than $ 75, nor over $ 125, per acre. Therefore, at the minimum valuation the actual value of the land would not be more than $ 1,237.50, and, at the maximum value, $ 2,062.50. It therefore conclusively appears that the jury could only have assessed the damage at this latter figure under the evidence for the actual taking, while they assessed an amount in the neighborhood of $ 8,000 for consequential damages.

One witness for appellees, W. H. Sumner, testifies that there were only seventy-five acres of first-class land concerned, and about one-third of the balance was third-class land. It was shown indisputably that the value of the whole property of appellees ranges from $ 45 to $ 125 per acre. It was alleged by several other witnesses for appellees, that the damage to the land was one-third the value of the whole property of the appellees; but on cross-examination it was further shown by these same witnesses that many improper elements of damage entered into their estimates. For instance, as estimates of damage, two witnesses for appellees, R. D. Murphree and J. B. Sumner, set forth the probabilities that livestock of appellees will be killed by the trains of appellant; that drainage of the rest of appellees' lands will be interfered with; that proper ditches will not be kept open; that labor would be disturbed, grass scattered, and great inconvenience result from appellees having to cross and recross the railroad track. We hardly think it necessary to discuss these elements of damage. No witness should be allowed to estimate that the value of a whole farm of about 300 acres, as is appellees', will be destroyed one-third of its market value because the negroes working in the field may stop in future years to look at passing trains, or that stock will get killed, or that, because of improper attention on the part of the laborers, the appellees' mules may run away in fright at the approach of trains, and get hurt.

The law is that damages for expropriation are estimated on the theory that proper and legal construction will be made, and proper provision be maintained, for drainage. If there should be failure of the railroad company's part as to this, the land owner will have, in every instance, his recourse in the courts. Not only will he have recourse, but the fact that such is the law is conclusive against the control of such considerations in the original condemnation proceedings. Railroad Company v. Davis, 73 Miss. 678, S.C., 19 So. 487; Railroad Company v. Harlin, 36 L. R. A. (Neb.), 417. The same rule applies as to the other elements of damage in the estimates of the appellees' witnesses.

While it is right that a landowner should have compensation for property taken, and also that actual damages should be augmented reasonably by further damages allowed because interference with the use or consequent impairment of the value of adjoining lands, we submit that it is beyond the bounds of reason to say that sixteen and a fraction acres out of a tract of three hundred acres will destroy the value of the whole remaining tract to the extent of five or six times the actual damage. The state constitution contemplates that a landowner shall be compensated reasonably for consequential damages, whether his land be actually taken or not, but the...