Case Name: NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. EDGAR V. EDENS, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1960-05-18
Citations: 252 N.C. 593
Docket Number: 
Parties: NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. EDGAR V. EDENS, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 252
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. EDGAR V. EDENS, Respondent.
(Filed 18 May, 1960.)
Appeal by petitioner from McKinnon, J., October Term, 1959, of CUMBERLAND.
Proceeding in which respondent admitted petitioner’s right to acquire by condemnation an easement across respondent’s land for the construction of a pipeline for the transmission of gas. The only issue raised by the pleadings and submitted to the jury was: “What sum, if any, is respondent entitled to recover of petitioner as just compensation for the appropriation of their (sic) land, over and above all special benefits, if any, accruing to said lands, by reason of the appropriation by petitioner of the easement described in the Petition?” The jury answered, “$9,000.00.”
Judgment, in accordance with the verdict, was entered. Petitioner excepted and appealed.
Sanford, Phillips, McCoy & Weaver for petitioner, appellant.
Clark, Braswell & Hill for respondent, appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The case on appeal contains all or a portion of the testimony of two witnesses, one (Mr. Rose) for the respondent and the other (Mr. McCormick) for the petitioner. Indeed, nothing appears to show that any witness testified to the reasonable market value of the land covered by the easement or to the reasonable market value of respondent's remaining land either before or after petitioner acquired such easement. Obviously, the bulk of the testimony offered at the trial does not appear in the record before us.
Petitioner's three assignments of error relate to the overruling or sustaining of objections to certain questions asked Mr. Rose or Mr. McCormick. Particular discussion of these assignments is deemed unnecessary. Suffice to say, consideration thereof fails to disclose prejudicial error.
No error.