Opinion ID: 1918706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the landowners received just compensation as guaranteed by the mississippi constitution.

Text: ¶ 23. Section 17 of the Mississippi Constitution provides: Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, except on due compensation being first made to the owner or owners thereof, in a manner to be prescribed by law; and whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be public shall be a judicial question, and, as such, determined without regard to legislative assertion that the use is public. ¶ 24. This Court has elaborated on what compensation is to be paid: Due compensation is what ought to be madethat is, what will make the owner whole pecuniarily for appropriating or injuring his property by any invasion of it cognizable by the senses, or by interference with some right in relation to property whereby its market value is lessened as the direct result of the public use. King v. Vicksburg Ry. & Light Co., 88 Miss. 456, 487, 42 So. 204 (1906). ¶ 25. The appellants argue in general that they did not receive just compensation and that the only way for them to receive just compensation is to reverse the case and remand it to the Special Court of Eminent Domain. This general assertion is unfounded. The record demonstrates that the appellant landowners did receive just compensation. There is no reason to detail the testimony of the two appraisers who testified at trial on behalf of each party. The appellants received a fair trial, and the chancellor has the exclusive power in finding the amount of just compensation. Lee v. Indian Creek Drainage Dist. Number One, 246 Miss. 254, 148 So.2d 663 (1963). Members of this Court may not agree with the result reached by the trial court as to damages done land by the acquisition of private property through eminent domain proceedings, but the jury (or chancellor, as the case may be) is the judge of the weight and worth of the testimony. Id. at 262, 148 So.2d at 665. ¶ 26. The District had the appellants' property appraised by qualified registered appraisers. The appellants presented their own expert appraisal witness to be considered by the chancellor. When a portion of a larger tract of land is taken for public use, the owner is entitled to be awarded the difference between the fair market value of the entire tract immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the remaining tract immediately after the taking. Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. Fires, 693 So.2d 917, 920 (Miss.1997). Both the appraisers who testified at trial used the proper so-called before and after valuation of the property. At the conclusion of the hearing, the chancellor requested that the parties summarize their testimony and send it to the court in written form for review. The chancellor received an analysis of the just compensation hearing by both parties. After considering all the evidence, the chancellor, by applying the correct standard, raised the amount that had previously been paid into the clerk on behalf of the Branamans and confirmed the amount paid for the Cain easements. We hold that the chancellor was not manifestly wrong in his award of damages in this case.