Case Name: BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, formerly STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. ELIZABETH L. POWELL; BETTY LOU CHESHIRE AND HUSBAND, JOHN LOUIS CHESHIRE; DOROTHY P. MARSHALL; NANCY P. BASS AND HUSBAND, GLENN BASS; AND THE TEXAS COMPANY
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1974-03-06
Citations: 21 N.C. App. 95
Docket Number: No. 7413SC104
Parties: BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, formerly STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. ELIZABETH L. POWELL; BETTY LOU CHESHIRE AND HUSBAND, JOHN LOUIS CHESHIRE; DOROTHY P. MARSHALL; NANCY P. BASS AND HUSBAND, GLENN BASS; AND THE TEXAS COMPANY
Judges: Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, formerly STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. ELIZABETH L. POWELL; BETTY LOU CHESHIRE AND HUSBAND, JOHN LOUIS CHESHIRE; DOROTHY P. MARSHALL; NANCY P. BASS AND HUSBAND, GLENN BASS; AND THE TEXAS COMPANY
No. 7413SC104
(Filed 6 March 1974)
Highways and Cartways § 5— condemnation for highway relocation — adequacy of charge to jury
In a proceeding to condemn land for relocation of a highway, the charge of the trial court, when considered as a whole, correctly stated the law and presented the issues fairly to the jury.
Appeal by all defendants, except Texaco, Inc. (Texas Company) who claimed no interest in the property, from Brewer, Judge, at the 20 August 1973 Session of Brunswick Superior Court.
This action was instituted by the North Carolina Board of Transportation for the purpose of condemning a portion of defendants’ land for the relocation of U. S. Highways 17, 74 and 76 near the town of Leland in Brunswick County. From a verdict of $38,210.00, the defendants appealed.
Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Claude W. Harris for plaintiff appellee.
Frink, Foy & Ganey by Henry G. Foy; and Addison Hewlett, Jr., for defendant appellants.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The defendants have brought forward a number of assignments of error dealing with the admission and exclusion of evidence. We have reviewed these assignments of error and found no prejudicial error.
The defendants offered testimony as to the difference in value of their property before and after the taking in the following amounts: $98,000.00, $72,770.00, and $77,250.00. The State presented evidence as to a difference in value in the following amounts: $29,500.00, and $31,625.00. The jury returned a verdict of $37,500.00 to which the trial judge addqd interest of $710.00 for a total verdict of $38,210.00. The charge of the trial court, when considered as a whole, correctly stated the law and presented the issues fairly to the jury. We find
No error.
Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.