Court Opinion

ID: 9566606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:41:16.5512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:38.101884
License: Public Domain

Quillian, Judge,
dissenting. With the conclusion of the majority concerning ground 12 of the amended motion for new trial I cannot agree. I think the witness clearly identified the lots to which his testimony alluded as lots not taken but a part of the same tract of land and as being property which the condemnee contended had been damaged in consequence of that *395taken. Evidence of the value of these lots at the time of trial was pertinent and material to the issue as to whether they had actually been damaged. While consequential damages to realty of the condemnee adjacent to that condemned theoretically accrue at the time of the taking, the existence and amount of such damages is shown by facts and conditions prevailing subsequent to the actual condemnation and events transpiring between that time and the time at which the condemnation case is tried. Stansell & Rape Bros. v. City of McDonough, 50 Ga. App. 234 (7b) (177 S. E. 749), and cases cited therein.
The value of the lands alleged to have been damaged, as of the time of the trial, is an evidentiary fact which is admissible, together with other evidence as to the value, of such lands at the time of or before the taking, for the purpose of arriving at the true amount in which such lands have been damaged by the taking, although the damage itself must be fixed as of the time of taking. Georgia S. F. R. Co. v. Small, 87 Ga. 355 (13 S. E. 515). The same rule of evidence would apply to consequential benefits, and the jury would then determine, from all the evidence, whether the adjacent lands were damaged or benefited by the taking, and, if they were damaged to a greater extent than they were benefited, the amount of such damage.
In Southern Ry. Co. v. Leonard, 58 Ga. App. 574, 581 (199 S. E. 433) it was held: “ ‘While the plaintiff is entitled to recover only the diminution in the market value of the property and may not recover for any decrease in the rentals, the difference in the rental value of the property before the improvements were begun and after they were completed might be set up as a circumstance tending itself to show a diminution in the value of the property, or to corroborate other evidence to that effect.’ City of Atlanta v. Atlas Realty Co., 17 Ga. App. 426 (2b) (87 S. E. 698); City of Atlanta v. Gore, 47 Ga. App. 70 (5) (169 S. E. 776).”
I dissent from the holding that the exclusion of the evidence contained in ground 13 of the amended motion for new trial was a correct ruling.
The familiar rule should be applied that evidence is admissible for the purpose “ ‘of illustrating the market value of the prop*396erty taken, and to assist the jury in arriving at the true market value of the property,’ which ‘is not its market value for any particular purpose, but its market value for any and all purposes,’ and that ‘in arriving at this general market value’ the jury ‘are authorized to consider its availability and adaptability and value for any particular purpose or use for which the evidence shows it might be used.’ ” State Highway Board v. Shierling, 51 Ga. App. 935 (2) (181 S. E. 885).
If the map which clearly showed the prospective use of lands as a subdivision be excluded merely because the tract had not then been divided into a subdivision the prospective value of the tract for that purpose could not be proved.
In the case of Harrison v. Young, 9 Ga. 359 (4) it was held: “The value of the land taken for public use, is not restricted to its agricultural or productive qualities, but inquiry may be made as to all other legitimate purposes to which the property could be appropriated.” The Harrison case has been uniformly followed. Georgia Power Co. v. Carson, 46 Ga. App. 612 (4) (167 S. E. 902); State Highway Board v. Coleman, 78 Ga. App. 54, 55 (50 S. E. 2d 262).
If the range of evidence be so limited as to exclude from consideration the prospective value of the tract of land in question as a subdivision until it was actually laid off or used for that purpose, the rule pronounced in the Harrison case cannot be applied. Instead of the value of the property for any purpose, including any prospective use, the standard would be the value of the property for only the use to which it is. presently put.
The fact that the plat showed other property than that owned by the condemnee did not render it inadmissible. In Napier v. Little, 137 Ga. 242 (3) (73 S. E. 3, 38 L.R.A. (NS) 91, Ann. Cas. 1913A 1013) it is held: “A map made by a surveyor, proved to be correct, of the premises sued for in an action for land, and of other tracts adjacent thereto, is admissible to go to the jury to illustrate other testimony in the case, and for the purpose of throwing light on the location of the land in controversy.”
I am authorized to say that Judge Townsend concurs in this dissent.