Duke Power Co. v. Sykes

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Duke Power Co. v. Sykes

136 S.E.2d 707, 262 N.C. 305, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 643

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 12, 1964·Published

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

All of the assignments of error are directed to this question: What is the rule which a jury should use when determining the compensation a public service corporation must pay when it takes an easement in the property of another? The rule was concisely stated in Proctor v. Highway Commission, 230 N.C. 687, 55 S.E. 2d 479. The rule there stated has been reiterated in many subsequent cases. 2 N.C. Index 203, n. 64. Tersely stated, the gauge for measurement is the difference in market value before and after the taking. The court so instructed the jury.

Petitioner does not assign as error the rule as given. It merely contends the jury might have misunderstood and used a rule of measurement more favorable to defendants. When the charge is considered as an entirety, rather than as detached sentences, it is, in our opinion, in[306]*306conceivable that a jury should have misunderstood. Petitioner has not shown prejudicial error. Redevelopment Commission v. Hinkle, 260 N.C. 423, 132 S.E. 2d 761.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PeR Curiam.

All of the assignments of error are directed to this question: What is the rule which a jury should use when determining the compensation a public service corporation must pay when it takes an easement in the property of another? The rule was concisely stated in Proctor v. Highway Commission, 230 N.C. 687, 55 S.E. 2d 479. The rule there stated has been reiterated in many subsequent cases. 2 N.C. Index 203, n. 64. Tersely stated, the gauge for measurement is the difference in market value before and after the taking. The court so instructed the jury.

Petitioner does not assign as error the rule as given. It merely contends the jury might have misunderstood and used a rule of measurement more favorable to defendants. When the charge is considered as an entirety, rather than as detached sentences, it is, in our opinion, in[306]*306conceivable that a jury should have misunderstood. Petitioner has not shown prejudicial error. Redevelopment Commission v. Hinkle, 260 N.C. 423, 132 S.E. 2d 761.

No error.

Duke Power Co. v. Sykes, 136 S.E.2d 707, 262 N.C. 305, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 643 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

136 S.E.2d 707 (Duke Power Co. v. Sykes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related