Opinion ID: 1147872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant's assignment 43 recites:

Text: 43. The Trial Court erred in sustaining the objection of the Plaintiff to the offer of the Defendant to show by the witness, W. E. Collier, the value of the timber and pulpwood on the whole tract of land involved in the condemnation and on the tract of land actually taken, the offer to show by the Defendant being as follows: `If your honor please, if we propose to show by this witness, first, as to the value of the timber and pulpwood, and second, we propose to show by him the value, the fair market value of the timber and pulpwood on the 100 acres taken by the Power Company as of February 4, 1964, the time of the taking.' The court sustained objection as follows: THE COURT: I, I sustain the objection to that, then, to those questions, in that form. We think it is clear beyond question that the landowner had the right to show the value of the timber and pulpwood on the land taken. Long Distance Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Schmidt, 157 Ala. 391, 47 So. 731. We are not persuaded, however, that defendant had a right to show the value of timber and pulpwood on the remaining land unless the owner proposed also to show that the trees on the remaining land would be damaged or destroyed by the taking. We do not understand appellant to say that the trees on the remaining land would be damaged, destroyed, or diminished in value by the taking. The court pointed out that objection was sustained to the showing in that form. When legal is united with illegal evidence, the court is not bound to separate the good from the badbut may reject the whole.Smith v. Zauer [Zaner], 4 Ala. 99. Dryer v. Lewis, 57 Ala. 551, 556. We will not put the court in error for sustaining objection to an offer to show jointly admissible and inadmissible evidence.