Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Spiers

172 So. 2d 208, 251 Miss. 885, 1965 Miss. LEXIS 915
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 22, 1965
DocketNo. 43272
StatusPublished

This text of 172 So. 2d 208 (Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Spiers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Spiers, 172 So. 2d 208, 251 Miss. 885, 1965 Miss. LEXIS 915 (Mich. 1965).

Opinion

Kyle, P. J.

This case is before us on appeal by the Mississippi State Highway Commission from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Pearl River County rendered in favor of the appellees, James C. Spiers and his wife, for the sum of $50,000, as compensation and damages for the taking of a strip of land, containing 43.78 acres, to be used for highway right of way purposes in the construction of a new interstate highway running through and across the appellees’ 336-acre tract of land situated approximately eight or nine miles northeast of the City of Picayune in the southern part of Pearl River County.

The record shows that the Mississippi State Highway Commission, on July 26, 1962, filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Pearl River County its application for the organization of a special court of eminent domain for the condemnation of the above mentioned strip of land owned by the appellees for highway right of way [890]*890purposes. The new highway for which a right of way was being acquired was Interstate Highway No. 59, a limited access four-lane highway running from Meridian in a southwesterly direction through the cities of Laurel and Hattiesburg, and thence southwestwardly along the route laid out by the State Highway Commission to the City of New Orleans.

The record shows that the appellees’ 336-acre tract of land constituted a fractional part of Section 34, Township 4 South, Range 6 West, and a fractional part of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 16 West, all in Pearl River County. According to the application for condemnation of the above mentioned strip of land for right of way purposes, the new highway was to enter the appellees’ land from a northeasterly direction a short distance south of the northeast corner thereof and then run thence diagonally in a southeasterly direction through and across the appellees’ land to the point of intersection with the south boundary line of the appellees’ land in Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 16 West.

At the time the eminent domain suit was filed the 336-aere tract of land was being used by the appellees, James C. Spiers and wife, as a cattle farm and for the pasturage of horses. The northern portion of the 336-acre tract was traversed by a gravel county road running in a general easterly and westerly direction which, according to the plans for the construction of the interstate highway, was to be relocated and reconstructed with an overpass across the interstate highway.

Much of the appellees’ land at the time the eminent domain suit was filed was cutover land referred to in the record as woodland pasture. The remaining part of the land was open land, including 40 acres of bahia grass land, 81 acres of unimproved native grass land, approximately 8 acres of crop land, and 1 acre of pecan trees. The dwelling house, which appears to have been [891]*891unoccupied at the time of the filing of the eminent domain suit, and the barn were situated south of the above mentioned county road and west of the proposed new highway. The strip of land sought to he condemned and taken included 14 acres of woodland pasture, 22 acres of bahia grass land and 7 acres of native grass land. Approximately 169.43 acres of the 336-acre tract lying east of the strip of land sought to he condemned, after the construction of the limited access highway, will he cut off entirely from the remaining land owned by the appellees lying west of the new highway, and approximately 68.28 acres in the southwest corner of the 336-acre tract will be cut off from the remaining 54.53 acres lying west of the new highway.

The record shows that a special court of eminent domain was organized for the trial of the eminent domain suit and the case was tried on July 25, 1962. The jury returned a verdict awarding compensation and damages to the owners in the amount of $35,000, and a judgment was entered for that amount. From that judgment the State Highway Commission prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court. The case was tried anew in the circuit court at the regular April 1963 term thereof, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the landowners for the sum of $50,000. The appellants filed a motion for a new trial, alleging as grounds therefor that the verdict of the jury was so excessive as to denote bias and prejudice on the part of the jury and was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The court overruled the appellant’s motion for a new trial, and from the judgment entered in favor of the appellee landowners for the above stated sum of $50,000, the appellant has prosecuted this appeal.

The appellant’s attorneys have assigned and argued four points as grounds for reversal of the judgment of the lower court.

[892]*892It is first argued that there is no credible evidence in the record to support the verdict of the jury, and the verdict is so excessive as to denote bias and prejudice on the part of the jury. In as much as we have reached the conclusion that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted for the reasons thus stated, it is not necessary that we consider the other points assigned and argued in the appellant’s brief.

Four witnesses were called to testify by the State Highway Commission on the issue as to the amount of compensation which should be paid to the landowners on account of the taking of the 43.78-acre strip for highway right of way purposes.

Charles B. Moore, a licensed real estate broker with considerable experience in appraising the value of farm lands and timber lands testified that he made an inspection and appraisal of the Spiers land for the State Highway .Commission during the month of July 1962 for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land before and after the taking of the 43-aore strip of land for highway purposes. He stated that in his opinion the fair market value of the 336-acres before the taking was $48,290; after the taking, $35,400; and that the differences in value after the taking amounted to $12,800. The witness was asked whether he knew of recent sales of comparable property, which might be used as a basis for the valuation of the Spiers property before and after the taking. His answer was that he knew of several such sales. He mentioned the sale of the Gonzales farm containing 160 acres and fronting on the Sycamore paved road, which was sold to George Spiers on June 6, 1961; the sale of the Harrison Penton farm, situated about three miles from the Spiers’ property and fronting on a blacktop road, which was sold to Charles F. White on September 9, 1961; the sale of the Benton Pigott place, situated approximately three miles from the Spiers land, which was sold to Sam Dyer [893]*893on March 29, 1961; and the sale of the Hillcrest Farm, which was a large farm with pecan trees and tnng trees and quite a bit of open land and timber land, and which was sold to the present owners in 1960. The witness stated that he considered the lands involved in each, of those sales as comparable to the Spiers land. The witness stated that, after the construction of the new highway, the 169 acres of the Spiers land lying east of the new highway would be cut off from the rest of the Spiers land, and in estimating the amount of damages to be paid to the defendants he had included an amount sufficient to cover the cost of a right of way from the east end of the overhead bridge on the county road to the north boundary line of the 169-acre tract. He stated that the defendants would have access to the 23-acre tract lying north of the county road after the construction of the new highway.

J. W.

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

Related

Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Ellzey
114 So. 2d 769 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1959)
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Roch
163 So. 2d 874 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1964)
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Rogers
112 So. 2d 250 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1959)
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Valentine
124 So. 2d 690 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1960)
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Taylor
116 So. 2d 757 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1960)
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Pittman
117 So. 2d 197 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 So. 2d 208, 251 Miss. 885, 1965 Miss. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mississippi-state-highway-commission-v-spiers-miss-1965.