However, market value is not always the fairest or most accurate method of measuring the loss to the condemnee. See Burke County v. Renfroe, 64 Ga. App. 395, 396 ( 13 S.E.2d 194); Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731 ( 146 S.E.2d 884); Elbert County v. Brown, 16 Ga. App. 834, 847 ( 86 S.E. 651); State Hwy. Dept. v. Augusta Dist. of N. Ga. Conference, Methodist Church, 115 Ga. App. 162, 164, supra. 2. Generally, testimony and evidence are allowed as to the potential usefulness for various purposes to which property may be put. "Whether it is or is not used for a particular purpose does illustrate its peculiar value and often shows its worth to the condemnee in excess of its market value.

" We agree with the Court of Appeals that the ruling of this court when the case was first before us ( 221 Ga. 731, 738 ( 146 S.E.2d 884)) to wit: "The constitutional provision is susceptible to no construction except the condemnee is entitled to be compensated for all damage to his property and expense caused by the condemnation proceedings," has no application here, in that "expenses" there involved, were not "expenses of litigation and attorneys fees." 2.

It is strongly suggested by plaintiff, and this is relevant to a number of the claims asserted, that the proper measure of damages should include the damage to plaintiff's businesses of an apartment house and laundromat. In taking this position plaintiff relies upon Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731, 146 S.E.2d 884 (1966) wherein the court held that where the evidence shows that a condemnee sustained damages and incurred expenses incident to the removal of his business, the trial court must not merely charge the jury with regard to the land taken but must include also the damages to the condemnee's business and expenses incident to the removal of the business from the land. In reaching this decision the Court overruled in relevant part a long line of cases to the contrary, including Pause, supra, although the Court confuses the issue by indicating the "pronouncement of these cases was obiter dictum."

While I concur in the opinion in this case, I feel that an explanation to the bench and bar is needed with reference to the holding in Division 1 of the opinion. In Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731 ( 146 S.E.2d 884) (1966) in an opinion authored by Justice Quillian and concurred in by Chief Justice Duckworth, Justices Candler, Almand and Grice, this court held: "Art. I, Sec. III, Par. I of the Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-301) is susceptible to no construction except the condemnee is entitled to be compensated for all damage done to his property and expenses caused by the condemnation proceedings.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731, 737(2), 146 S.E.2d 884 (1966). Thus, the Court criticized certain earlier decisions addressing condemnation damages, finding that they had “[failed] to perceive that the right of the owner to recover for damage done [to] his property was inclusive of damages to every species of property, real and personal, corporeal and incorporeal.”

Davis Co. v. Dept. of Transp., 262 Ga. App. 138, 139-142 (1), (2) ( 584 SE2d 705) (2003). See also Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731, 737-739 (2) ( 146 SE2d 884) (1966) (accord). Although evidence of potential uses for the property, the uniqueness of the property, or the costs of renovations made in anticipation of starting a business on the property may be admitted to establish the value of the property prior to the condemnation, a condemnee may not also recover separate business loss damages for projected profits from an unexecuted business plan, even if the plan is well-developed.

This means no more than that the potential uses of the property may be proved for that purpose." Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731, 739 ( 146 S.E.2d 884). The testimony as to the existence of the tobacco allotment was properly admitted as was the other testimony relating to the necessity or lack of necessity for moving it to another part of the farm and the consequent diminution in value depending on whether it was situated on land burdened or unburdened by the easement, and none of the testimony in this regard valued the same land twice in arriving at a damage figure. These enumerations of error are without merit.

PANNELL, Judge. 1. While in Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731, 738 ( 146 S.E.2d 884), it is said: "The constitutional provision [Art. I, Sec. III, Par. I of the Georgia Constitution; Code Ann. § 2-301] is susceptible to no construction except the condemnee is entitled to be compensated for all damage to his property and expense caused by the condemnation proceedings," this ruling has no application to expenses of litigation and attorney's fees.

See also Small v. Wilson , 20 Ga. App. 674, 677, 93 S.E. 518 (1917) (tort action in trover could be maintained for shares of stock because "[s]hares in a corporation are generally said to be incorporeal personal property"). And in Bowers v. Fulton County , 221 Ga. 731, 146 S.E.2d 884 (1966), we held that our Constitution’s eminent domain provision—that "Private property shall not be taken, or damaged, for public purposes, without just and adequate compensation"—"plain[ly] and explicit[ly]" extended to economic damages to a business because "the right of the owner to recover for damage done his property was inclusive of damages to every species of property, real and personal, corporeal and incorporeal." Bowers , 221 Ga. at 734, 736, 737, 146 S.E.2d 884.

1. A condemnee is entitled to recover just and adequate compensation for the loss of his property. Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731, 737 ( 146 S.E.2d 884) (1966). A condemnee may recover business losses as a separate item if it operated a business on the property, if the loss is not remote or speculative, and if the property is "unique."