Title: State v. Self

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

307 So. 2d 11 (1975)
STATE of Alabama
v.
Dwight H. SELF et al.
SC 890.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 16, 1975.
*12 C. R. D. Burns, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Gadsden, for the State, appellant.
Simmons, Torbert & Cardwell, Gadsden, for appellees.
COLEMAN, Justice.
The state appeals from judgment awarding damages and compensation to landowners in a condemnation proceeding whereby the state acquired land in Etowah County for use as a public highway.
The state assigns error as follows:
The witness Morris testified that he has been living in Etowah County "practically" all his life; that he is in the business of "home builder" and has been in that business for about twelve years; that he has had occasion to buy land and lots in Etowah County; that he builds houses on the land and lots he buys and sells them; that that is how he makes a living and has done so for the past twelve years; that he has sold a lot of lots or parcels of land; that he is familiar with some property at East Gadsden owned by the condemnees; that he, Morris, has purchased some property that joins the property of the condemnees; that $27,000.00 was the total consideration paid for the property purchased by the witness on March 1st, 1971; that since his purchase, the witness has built houses on part of the property; that he subdivided the property; that he has built seven or *13 eight houses and some apartments on the property; that he has sold all the houses he built on the property.
On voir dire examination by the state, the witness Morris testified as follows:
Mr. Burns then stated: "MR. BURNS: Please the Court, we move that all of his testimony be excluded...." etc., as set out above in the assignment of error.
In Blount County v. Campbell, 268 Ala. 548, 109 So. 2d 678, this court had occasion to consider the action of a trial court in permitting witnesses to testify over appellant's objection as to the value of appellee's property. This court said:
In the instant case, the witness Morris testified with respect to his buying and selling of parcels of land in the area involved and building houses thereon. Certainly he had some knowledge of the property and some opportunity to form an opinion as to its value. We do not think the court erred in refusing to exclude all of the testimony of Morris.
Affirmed.
All the Justices concur.