Court Opinion

ID: 9584204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:45:29.750471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:05.894268
License: Public Domain

Brailsford, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) :
I agree that a new trial should be granted upon the first ground stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Littlejohn but respectfully dissent from the conclusion that the second ground, i. e., that the landowner’s expert witnesses did not assign before and after values to the entire tract of 179 acres, was error requiring a new trial. These witnesses confined their testimony to the land actually taken for the right-of-way and the land immediately adjacent to it, some twenty-five acres in all. In expressing their opinion as to the amount of compensation to which the landowner was entitled, they found no depreciation in value of the more remote acres. I perceive neither error nor prejudice. This approach to a determination of just compensation dovetails with the opinion’s sound pronouncement that, “The measure of just compensation in cases such as this is the value of the land required plus the amount of any ‘special damage.’ South Carolina Power Co. v. Baker, 212 S. C. 358, 46 S. E. (2d) 278 (1948); Code of Laws of South Carolina (1962), §§ 24-12, 58-302, 58-779.” The before and after rule is sound but is not exclusive. Furthermore, the trial judge’s instructions to the jury that it might use either method in arriving at an award has not been challenged and is the law of this case.
I also dissent from the holding of Justice Littlejohn that interest is not allowable. This question is controlled by the prior decision of this Court in Haig v. Wateree Power Co., 119 S. C. 319, 112 S. E. 55 (1922). Under the Haig case, interest may be recovered by the land*221owner where, as here, the taking is by a corporation. The question as to whether the landowner should have been allowed interest “should have been submitted, under appropriate instructions, for the consideration of the jury in fixing damages.” South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Miller, 237 S. C. 386, 117 S. E. (2d) 561 (1960).
The right to interest depends upon the facts of the particular case and, as any other element of recovery, must be established by the landowner.
While the form of instructions to the jury on the question of interest cannot be definitely prescribed because of varying factual situations, we suggest reference to the pertinent instruction set forth in the opinion in South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Southern Ry. Co., 239 S. C. 1, 121 S. E. (2d) 236 (1961).
The soundness of the holding that interest is not allowable in highway condemnation cases is of no concern to the landowner in this case.
Moss, C. J., and Lewis and Bussey, JJ., concur.