47 Ga. App. 211 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1933
The County of Walton filed its petition for condemnation of a right of way for a road or highway in or near the city of Loganville, Ga. Upon a hearing thereof before the assessors appointed in the ease, they made an award in favor of Mrs. Kate Livsey in the sum of $675, and found that the County of Walton should bear the expense of a suitable cattle underpass for the right sought to be condemned. From this award the county entered an appeal to the superior court. On the hearing of the appeal Mrs. Livsey filed a motion to remand the case to the assessors, on the ground that the award was a nullity, and that no appeal could be taken, as there was no valid judgment. The court overruled the motion, and to this ruling exceptions pendente lite were filed. The case proceeded to trial before a jurjr, and the jury rendered a straight money award for a greatly reduced amount. Mrs. Livsey come to this court on exceptions to the judgment refusing a new trial and to the refusal of the trial court to remand the case to the assessors.
“It is a general rule that if an inferior court or tribunal has no jurisdiction of a case, an appeal from its decision confers no jurisdiction upon the appellate court, and the rule applies to appeals from justice courts.” 3 C. J. 366. See also, in this connection, Pope v. Lee, 138 Ga. 536 (75 S. E. 632); Crawford v. Wheeler,
In ground 4 of the motion for a new trial complaint is made of the admission of certain testimony as to the value of the land and the qualification of the witness. “The market value of land is not a question of science and skill upon which only an expert can give an opinion.” Central Ga. Power Co. v. Cornwell, 139 Ga. 1 (76 S. E. 387, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 880). A witness is qualified to testify concerning the market value of land if he has had an opportunity of forming a correct opinion as to its value. If a witness living at a distance from the land sought to be condemned had no opportunity of knowing the land in that community or the particular land in controversy, he would be incompetent to testify as to its value. In the instant case the witness had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion, and it appears from the record that this witness had such an opportunity as to qualify him to give an opinion as a non-expert from the facts stated by him.
The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the court did not err in refusing to remand the case to the assessors or arbitrators, or in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.