Opinion
No. 43170.
October 26, 1964.
1. Eminent domain — verdict — not excessive.
Under the evidence, the Court could not hold that verdict was against great weight of evidence or that it was so excessive as to denote bias and prejudice.
2. Eminent domain — evidence — land values — absence of recent sales.
Testimony of witnesses for condemnee as to land values was not to be excluded on theory that they submitted no recent sales of comparable property where some of them claimed to testify to such sales, and at least one claimed there were no such sales.
3. Eminent domain — damages — award not excessive.
Award of fourteen thousand dollars for condemnation of 10.08 acres of cattle farm for nonaccess highway, within range of testimony, would be affirmed.
Headnotes as approved by Jones, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Pearl River County; SEBE DALE, J.
Tate Thigpen, Grayson B. Keaton, Picayune, for appellant.
I. There was no credible evidence to support the verdict of the jury. The verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, and not supported by a preponderance of the testimony, and the verdict of the jury is so excessive as to denote bias and prejudice, and so as to shock the enlightened conscience.
II. The lower court erred in overruling appellant's motion for continuance after the selection of the jury.
III. The lower court erred in refusing to strike or exclude the value testimony of the witnesses for appellees.
Collation of authorities: Copiah Dairies, Inc. v. Addkison, 247 Miss. 327, 153 So.2d 689; McDuffie v. Mississippi State Highway Comm., 239 Miss. 518, 124 So.2d 284; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Davis, 249 Miss. 643, 163 So.2d 729; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Ellzey, 237 Miss. 345, 114 So.2d 679; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Herring, 241 Miss. 729, 133 So.2d 279, 895; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Hudgins, 182 Miss. 518, 181 So. 719; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Pepper, 250 Miss. 347, 164 So.2d 911; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Pittman, 238 Miss. 402, 117 So.2d 197; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Randle, 180 Miss. 834, 178 So. 486; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Roche, 249 Miss. 792, 163 So.2d 874; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Rogers, 240 Miss. 529, 128 So.2d 353; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Slade, 241 Miss. 721, 133 So.2d 282; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Stubbs, 239 Miss. 499, 125 So.2d 281; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Taylor, 237 Miss. 847, 116 So.2d 757; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Valentine, 239 Miss. 890, 124 So.2d 690; Strickland v. Mississippi State Highway Comm., 240 Miss. 7, 125 So.2d 696; Tucker v. Gurley, 176 Miss. 708, 170 So. 230; Womble v. Mississippi State Highway Comm., 239 Miss. 372, 123 So.2d 235; 12 Am. Jur., Continuances, Sec. 19 p. 460; Orgel, Valuation Under Eminent Domain, Secs. 134, 142.
Williams Williams, Poplarville, for appellees.
I. Cited and discussed the following authorities. Aetna Insurance Co. v. Lester, 170 Miss. 353, 154 So. 706; Burrill v. Rau, 153 Miss. 437, 121 So. 118; Caldwell v. Smith, 200 Miss. 711, 28 So.2d 657; C R Stores v. Scarborough, 189 Miss. 872, 196 So. 650; Faulkner v. Middleton, 186 Miss. 355, 190 So. 910; Gee v. Rimmer, 188 Miss. 460, 195 So. 342; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Williams, 165 Miss. 233, 145 So. 94; Hemming v. Rawlings, 144 Miss. 643, 110 So. 118; Johnson v. Richardson, 234 Miss. 849, 108 So.2d 194; Lynch v. American Slicing Machine Co., 202 Miss. 515, 32 So.2d 546; Mississippi Central R. Co. v. Roberts, 173 Miss. 487, 160 So. 604; Mississippi Power Light Co. v. Smith, 169 Miss. 447, 153 So. 376; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Baker, 241 Miss. 738, 133 So.2d 277; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Brooks, 239 Miss. 308, 123 So.2d 428; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Gabbert, 238 Miss. 687, 119 So.2d 774; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Mitchell, 247 Miss. 536,
154 So.2d 284; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Stout, 242 Miss. 208, 134 So.2d 467; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Strong, 240 Miss. 756, 129 So.2d 349; Mississippi State Highway Comm. v. Turnipseed, 236 Miss. 764, 111 So.2d 925; National Box Co. v. Bradley, 171 Miss. 15, 154 So. 724, 95 A.L.R. 1500; New Orleans G.N.R. Co. v. Walden (Miss.), 133 So. 241; Nicholson v. Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, 203 Miss. 71, 33 So.2d 606; Overing v. Skrmetta, 218 Miss. 648, 67 So.2d 606; Rucks v. Great Southern Tel. Tel. Co. (Miss.), 23 So. 454; Saenger Theatre Corp. v. Herndon, 180 Miss. 791, 178 So. 86; Sims v. McIntyre, 8 Sm. M. (16 Miss.) 324; Triangle Amusement Co. v. Benigno (Miss.), 35 So.2d 454; Universal Truck Loading Co. v. Taylor, 178 Miss. 143, 172 So. 756; Williams Yellow Pine Co. v. Henley, 155 Miss. 893, 125 So. 552.
This is an eminent domain case which comes from Pearl River County. On the trial in the Special Court of Eminent Domain, the appellee was given a verdict for $12,000. On appeal to the circuit court, the verdict was $14,000. We affirm the case.
The appellee was the owner of approximately 187 acres of land situated in Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 16 West. It consisted of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4; NW 1/4 of NE 1/4; NE 1/4 of NW 1/4; SW 1/4 of NE 1/4, less about three acres in the form of a square in the northeast corner thereof; and a portion of the NW 1/4 of NW 1/4. The property was about three-fourths of a mile northeast of the City of Picayune and about five miles north of the government project hereinafter mentioned.
The Commissioner was condemning 10.08 acres extending in a northeasterly direction through the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 for a non-access highway. There was a public road leading to the northwest corner of the land and thence along the north line thereof to the northeast corner. Just west of the northeast corner a farm road ran in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction through the NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 and SW 1/4 of NE 1/4. There was also a road extending along the eastern boundary, or near the boundary, in a northerly and southerly direction, through the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of SE 1/4. This road connected with a public road. There was a public road down the east side of the property, at least from the improvements south.
The lands taken for the non-access highway severed the road going east and west along the north side of the land, and left 27.58 acres on the west side of said highway with no direct access from the east portion of the property. On this 27.58 acres there was no water and no improvements.
The entire tract of land had been highly developed by clearing and the addition of minerals and the planting of Bahia and White Dutch Clover. It was considered an excellent cattle farm, for which purpose it was used by appellee, who was a graduate of Mississippi State College with a degree in agriculture and who had for many years managed large properties of others in Pearl River County as well as his own property. On the east side of his property there were situated two ponds and a residence; the entire property was enclosed by a fence. The severing of the land cutting off 27.58 acres on the west side would necessitate the construction of at least one-half mile of fences if the property were to be used for pasture purposes; but, without water, the 27.58 acres were practically useless.
To go from the east side of the property to the 27.58 acres on the west of the highway and return necessitated an eight-mile trip. In addition to Bahia and White Dutch grasses, there was Rescue grass and native grass. It was shown that the pasture was highly developed.
As is usual in these cases that come to this Court, there was a wide disparity between the valuations placed by the witnesses for the Commission and those for the defendant. The Commission's witnesses valued the property before taking from $42,000 to $48,500; they estimated the damages from $3640 to $5500.
In 1961 announcement was made that the Federal Government would establish a project partly in Pearl River County that would require thousands of acres of land; that about 700 families would be forced to move and seek new homes; that there would be a great influx of people. As a result of this announcement, land prices in and around Picayune advanced greatly. This is not disputed. Most, if not all, the sales shown by witnesses for the Commission as comparable sales were made before this announcement.
Appellee valued his property before taking at $65,659 and his damages after taking at $18,441.90. Four other witnesses for the appellee valued the property before taking from $60,884 to $76,550, and the same four witnesses estimated the damages from $15,238 to $20,844. In addition to the testimony, the jury went upon the property and viewed it.
While the jury's verdict is more than twice the damages proven by the witnesses for the Commission, it is $4,441.90 less than the damages testified to by appellee, $6,844 less than the damages estimated by one of appellee's witnesses, and $1,238 less than the smallest estimate of damages testified by the appellee's witnesses.
(Hn 1) In view of the facts hereinbefore stated, we are unable to say that this verdict is against the great weight of the evidence or that it is so excessive as to denote bias and prejudice. Cf. McDuffie v. Miss. State Highway Commission, 239 Miss. 518, 124 So.2d 284; Miss. State Highway Commission v. Slade, 241 Miss. 721, 133 So.2d 282.
(Hns 2, 3) It is argued that the testimony of witnesses for appellee should be excluded on the ground they submitted no recent sales of comparable property. Some of them claimed to testify to sales of comparable property, and at least one claimed there were no recent sales of comparable property. However, "In condemnation proceedings, a wide latitude is allowed under the law as to values, and usually intelligent and experienced witnesses, having knowledge of property and the uses to which it may be put, and who can give their opinions as to valuations, may be selected. It is not necessary that there should be actual sales made in the particular locality where the condemnation is being had for values to be ascertained, but the judgment of people familiar with property and its value, and with the uses to which such property may be put, will fix such values." State Highway Commission v. Buchanan, 175 Miss. 157, 166 So. 537, 538.
The other assignments of error are not well taken and the case is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Lee, C.J., and McElroy, Rodgers and Patterson, JJ., concur.