Stanfield v. State Highway Department

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stanfield v. State Highway Department

98 S.E.2d 40, 95 Ga. App. 452, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 824

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1957

Docket36608

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 98 S.E.2d 40 (Stanfield v. State Highway Department) 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

Stanfield v. State Highway Department, 98 S.E.2d 40, 95 Ga. App. 452, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 824 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, C. J.

1. In an appeal to the superior court from the award of the appraisers in a condemnation proceeding where there is no evidence that there will be any consequential benefits to that portion of the land not taken, it is error for the court to charge the jury on the question of consequential benefits. Garden Parks, Inc. v. Fulton County, 88 Ga. App. 97 (3) (76 S. E. 2d 31).

2. Assuming for the sake of argument that the testimony of the condemnor’s witness “as to why, in my opinion, the remaining tract of land will be just as valuable per square foot as the larger tract: When the highway comes by it, it will be more valuable per square foot” is sufficient to show a consequential benefit, such testimony is not sufficient to authorize the jury to find “the amount of enhancement in value or even the percent of increase in the value of the property.” Andrus v. State Highway Dept., 93 Ga. App. 827, 829 (3) (93 S. E. 2d 174).

The court erred in denying the amended motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur. *453 Holland ■& Lea, Preston L. Holland, for plaintiff in error. Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Paul Miller, Assistant Attorney-General, Edwin S. Kemp, Harold R. Banke, contra.

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

Felton, C. J.

1. In an appeal to the superior court from the award of the appraisers in a condemnation proceeding where there is no evidence that there will be any consequential benefits to that portion of the land not taken, it is error for the court to charge the jury on the question of consequential benefits. Garden Parks, Inc. v. Fulton County, 88 Ga. App. 97 (3) (76 S. E. 2d 31).

2. Assuming for the sake of argument that the testimony of the condemnor’s witness “as to why, in my opinion, the remaining tract of land will be just as valuable per square foot as the larger tract: When the highway comes by it, it will be more valuable per square foot” is sufficient to show a consequential benefit, such testimony is not sufficient to authorize the jury to find “the amount of enhancement in value or even the percent of increase in the value of the property.” Andrus v. State Highway Dept., 93 Ga. App. 827, 829 (3) (93 S. E. 2d 174).

The court erred in denying the amended motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur. *453 Holland ■& Lea, Preston L. Holland, for plaintiff in error. Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Paul Miller, Assistant Attorney-General, Edwin S. Kemp, Harold R. Banke, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E.2d 40, 95 Ga. App. 452, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanfield-v-state-highway-department-gactapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack