*1 in therefore, The trial court contended did charge special ground 3, giving in regard giving estoppel issue of the jury appropriate thereon. instructions
5. court in Roberts v. Sou. Under Supply court trial charging err in the jury did not defendant owners would entitled be credit price, plus contract extras if part of the defendant workmanship on any, for defective as of date been corrected or done contractor which case, page 307: “The the Roberts trial. stated in As cost what it to finish of the defense of cannot avail himself lien.” estimate constitutes uncompleted an as no contract, such ground in re- special not error as contended Likewise, it regard testify witness for defendants to fusing to allow a re-doing alleged unsatisfactory cost of certain work on part contractor the evidence showed that the same had not been done at the date trial. J., J., et al. BAILEY COUNTY FULTON
39686. March 14, 1963 1963. denied March Rehearing *2 Sheats, Harold Alex M. for in error. Hitz, G. Robert contra. Grant, Wm. W. Spears, Judge. given by 1. One of the the witness reasons stating of land had that owner been $3,800, remaining because of the of represented the of $11,500 damages lessee the property. This reason, howéver, finding was not sufficient to authorize for the owner less of evidence, as shown the lease because in question contemplation it executed in shows that was widening “proposed part of future side of Pied- west not to up feet,” mont Road exceed twenty express the lessee interest terms, renounced award for damages on account thereof. The shows record that the strip of land condemned was 15.2 feet in point. width at widest
2. It is contended that this that, witness also testified not- withstanding the on premises, damage lease the net on $3,800. of taking account The the basis this is “It my follows: is opinion, I quoting legal am it from a am quoting I it standpoint, a market she no standpoint, loss, will have she can sell the prop- erty for the same all this Q. but going on. is And time county should, paying instead price of the fair market the piece $11,500 instead only pay should because right? of those that A. circumstances, is I am trying to say what county pay. They pay should can whatever the say jury says. I am her trying damage what is, my ion, based for the property, based service station, based lease, that is damage Q. her $3,800. You say that this would sell for as after you much cut off cut off? sold if had not feet as it would front that is because say The reason sir. my opinion, yes,
A. In the service station makes station, the service is benefit to actually the service station believe, so useable I more the mar- opinion, also testified that, This witness helps it.” $126,850, before the ket after remaining property that the market value of be the same. would still testimony is that the witness proper
The construction excess taken the against the offsetting consequential damages over consequential benefits 36-504, be done. Code cannot remaining property. This §§ 36-506. cases to cites
3. While the condemnor does not mean not bound witnesses’ knowledge. personal can value on their determine Gibson, 965) ; Carreker, 91 Code 110-108. § *3 (95 s.c. 93 Dept. Andrus, v. Ga. SE2d Hwy. 212 737 State to (93 174). jury so would allow a To rule App. Ga. 827 SE2d approximation own of value. the evidence to reach its abandon (125 App. 667 Stephens Co., 105 v. Southern Discount Ga. See 235). simply jury means that is not bound The rule SE2d testified when verdict to witnesses to render a upon jury may there in the is sufficient evidence “data which legitimately knowledge exercise their ‘own ideas’.” and Jeffer (3) (154 378). v. Kennedy, App. son 41 672 SE Cf. Sam Ga. (69 Copeland, App. 617); mons v. 85 v. Ga. 318 SE2d Chalker (37 160). App. Hwy. Dept. Ga. See Raley, 73 415 SE2d State supra. 212 Andrus, 737, v. Ga. authorized the to which
No evidence is shown would from the amount directed find a in an amount directing case. The court did Bailey, Mrs. the owner of Felton, J., Carlisle, J,. P. J., C.
Hall Eberhardt, JJ., Bell, Russell, JJ., and Jordan and dissent. dissenting. I think the trial court erred in Judge,
Jordan, directing a verdict in this case two important reasons. very
515 are peculiarly is well settled that of value First, questions there data in the determination of the where evidence upon their may legitimately knowledge which exercise they and ideas. In such determination are not making they bound opinion value. accept correct as to such of witnesses absolutely accept are not opin “Jurors as correct the bound or though ions estimates of property, of witnesses as to uncontradicted right but have the testimony, consider together fact involved, any other with nature knowledge, throwing light their properly or circumstance within their verdict, and fix either question, may, higher upon the stated or lower estimates Northern R. or witnesses. Co. (97 94) v. 22 SE cit. App. , Ga. 666 and See also Battle, 665, (31 City Baker Richmond Works, 426); v. Mill 105 225 SE Ga. (73 493). v. McCarthy Applying 137 Ga. Lazarus, 282 SE the foregoing bar, facts of the at this court by any cannot hold that the verdict was unauthorized evidence.” (171 v. City LaGrange, App. 47 Ga. 691 McLendon (37 Raley, App. v. 73 see also Ga. 415 SE2d 307); Chalker (50 160); App. Ga. SE2d County, v. Cobb Southern (27 44). Nottingham App. v. West, SE2d 226); and Tompkins To the same see Chevrolet 83 Ga. Watson 681) in'which it was held that ver a directed improper. dict was evaluating juiy
In to aid the order evidence in this value, case had before evidence light throw such as plat size property showing dimensions, location of Peachtree Avenue, corner Road Piedmont *4 photographs property four itas existed at the time of taking, illustrating jury the nature, and location the improvements describing the tract from which the property taken showing the value of the yearly rental, term the pertinent lease, etc., facts concerning testified to same in explaining witness how he arrived placed valuation which he In considering certainly ample circumstances, facts and all these in an have authorized it which would data before amount directed from different amount witness given testimony to value Secondly, testimony his alone the basis of conflicting highly that direct- could reached testimony the value In addition ed. the market positively testified $11,500 he also
taken was $126,850 and entire before still after the that the that the being effect of such $126,850,the overall taken some- value of ion of the witness as testimony that further $11,500'. His zero and where between to the extent of property owner had leaving further clouded issue testimony from the unequivocal the jury no clear and question. witness circumstances set forth above the
Under the facts and should have been submitted of value in proper instructions from the court. under Judges to state that Bell and am authorized Russell concur in this dissent.
39800. SELLERS v. THE STATE. March 15, 1963ehearing denied March 28, 1963. R