State Highway Department v. Morton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

State Highway Department v. Morton

121 S.E.2d 275, 104 Ga. App. 106, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 616

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 19, 1961

Docket38928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 S.E.2d 275 (State Highway Department v. Morton) 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

State Highway Department v. Morton, 121 S.E.2d 275, 104 Ga. App. 106, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

The evidence objected to was clearly admissible and there was no error in overruling the objections thereto. It will be seen that the condemnor was seeking to acquire all rights of every kind, including those of a licensee or permittee, and in such a proceeding the condemnee is entitled to prove every element of consequential damage that may be relevant. There was no evidence as to whether the “permit” [108]*108to install the water line was written or oral or as to what the terms thereof may have been. But it is obvious that the condemnee had, on the faith of the license or permit, expended money in laying and installing the water line. The license or permit, not otherwise terminated, was sought to be condemned in this proceeding. Consequently, the loss of the line, or the interruption of a water supply by reason thereof, is an element of consequential damage, and evidence thereof was properly admitted. Code § 85-1404.

The testimony that the interruption of the water supply would make it necessary to drill a well to replace it was enough to support the estimate of $3,000 in consequential damages. Moreover, this testimony was elicited on cross-examination by the condemnor.

The general grounds of the motion were expressly abandoned in the oral arguments before the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Niohols, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

The evidence objected to was clearly admissible and there was no error in overruling the objections thereto. It will be seen that the condemnor was seeking to acquire all rights of every kind, including those of a licensee or permittee, and in such a proceeding the condemnee is entitled to prove every element of consequential damage that may be relevant. There was no evidence as to whether the “permit” [108]*108to install the water line was written or oral or as to what the terms thereof may have been. But it is obvious that the condemnee had, on the faith of the license or permit, expended money in laying and installing the water line. The license or permit, not otherwise terminated, was sought to be condemned in this proceeding. Consequently, the loss of the line, or the interruption of a water supply by reason thereof, is an element of consequential damage, and evidence thereof was properly admitted. Code § 85-1404.

The testimony that the interruption of the water supply would make it necessary to drill a well to replace it was enough to support the estimate of $3,000 in consequential damages. Moreover, this testimony was elicited on cross-examination by the condemnor.

The general grounds of the motion were expressly abandoned in the oral arguments before the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Niohols, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E.2d 275, 104 Ga. App. 106, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-highway-department-v-morton-gactapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack