Court Opinion

ID: 9854746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:13:17.687915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:19.479762
License: Public Domain

Stukes, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
*266I regret that I disagree with the result of the leading opinion, and particularly with the construction of Section 47-1302, Code of 1952.
The statute provides for compensation for, quoting, “the true and real value of such land and any damage to the residue of the land of such owner by reason of the opening, widening or extension of such highway, due regard being had, in assessing such damages, to any increased value of such residue by reason of the opening, widening or extension of such highway.”
It seems plain to me that the quoted language means that benefits may be offset only against the damages to the residue of the land and not against the value of the land taken for street purposes.
A statute may be more generous than the constitutional provision for compensation for property taken for public use. The following is from Lewis, Eminent Domain, 3rd Ed., Vol. 2, Sec. 696: “Since the Legislature may annex any condition to the exercise of the power of eminent domain which it pleases, it may prescribe a rule of damages more favorable to the property owner than the Constitution requires. This has been frequently done by excluding the consideration of benefits.”
Whatever Section 17 of Art. I of the constitution means, it should yield in this instance to the statute, if the constitutional provision be construed to require the offset of benefits against the value of the land taken and not merely against the damages, if any, to the residue.
I do not think that there is any conflict between this view and the authority of Wilson v. Greenville County, 110 S. C. 321, at page 324, 96 S. E. 301, at page 302. The statute construed in that case was as follows:
“ ‘In assessing compensation and damages for rights of way only the actual value of the land to be taken therefor, and any special damages resulting therefrom shall be considered, and due allowance shall be made for any special *267benefit which may accrue to the owner, including the value of the old road, if the same reverts to such owner.’ ” Civ. Code 1912, § 1933.
The allowance of special benefit there was against the value of the land taken and any resulting special damages; but Section 47-1302 does not so provide, as is seen above.
Oxner, J., concurs.