Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Georgia Power Company v. Livingston

Georgia Power Company v. Livingston

119 S.E.2d 802, 103 Ga. App. 512, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 985
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 4, 1961
Docket38733
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 119 S.E.2d 802 (Georgia Power Company v. Livingston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Georgia Power Company v. Livingston, 119 S.E.2d 802, 103 Ga. App. 512, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 985 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961).

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

The first headnote needs no-further discussion.

Ground 5 of the amended motion was properly overruled. The witness was not qualified to give an opinion as to the value of- a house on the land involved when he had never been inside the house. The testimony was properly excluded notwithstanding the court may have assigned the wrong reason therefor.

Ground 6 of the amended motion complains that the court erred in permitting the condemnee to testify that “it might be possible that it would be a subdivision out there.” One objection to this testimony was that it was speculative. We think the court erred in admitting this testimony. While it is too well known to require citation of authority that a jury may, in determining the value of land, consider all uses to which the property may reasonably be put, the mere possibility that it might be used for subdivision purposes is not enough to authorize a jury to consider the effect of such a possibility in determining the value of the land. At least a reasonable probability must be shown by competent evidence to authorize a jury to consider it in determining value,

(a) Grounds 7, 8 and 9 of the amended motion complain that the charge of the court was confusing and erroneous in its *514 statement of the measure of damages. The court used the terms “fair market value,” “fair and reasonable value,” and “just and adequate compensation.” In cases where, as here, there are no unusual circumstances which make the criterion of market value inapplicable, market value is the basis of the determination of the value of land taken and damage to land not taken. Georgia Power Co. v. Pittman, 92 Ga. App. 673 (89 S. E. 2d 577).

(b) It was also error for the court to charge the jury on the subject of the value of land actually taken. The proceeding is to condemn only an easement over the land to be actually used by the condemnor and not the fee-simple title.

Ground 10 of the amended motion has been abandoned.

Under the facts of this case the court correctly stated the method of determining the consequential damages.

The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial on special grounds 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Judgment reversed.

Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mayo v. City of Stockbridge
646 S.E.2d 79 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)
Elliott v. Henry County Water & Sewerage Authority
517 S.E.2d 545 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Skipper v. Department of Transportation
399 S.E.2d 538 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
Department of Transportation v. Great Southern Enterprises, Inc.
225 S.E.2d 80 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Georgia Power Co. v. Hendricks
204 S.E.2d 465 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Oak Ridge Village, Inc. v. La Siesta Mobile Home Park, Inc.
203 S.E.2d 748 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Del-Cook Timber Co. v. Bird
201 S.E.2d 807 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
State Highway Department v. Stevens
196 S.E.2d 890 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Schoolcraft v. DeKalb County
189 S.E.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Dash v. State
491 P.2d 1069 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1971)
State Highway Department v. Hodges
182 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
City of Atlanta v. West
180 S.E.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
State Highway Department v. Howell
168 S.E.2d 213 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Moore v. State Highway Department
159 S.E.2d 428 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Haskins v. Carson
154 S.E.2d 626 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
State Highway Department v. Rutland
146 S.E.2d 544 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
State Highway Department v. Ball
145 S.E.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Sims v. Georgia Power Co.
143 S.E.2d 652 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Schrimsher v. State Highway Department
140 S.E.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Georgia Power Co. v. Crow
130 S.E.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 S.E.2d 802, 103 Ga. App. 512, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-power-company-v-livingston-gactapp-1961.