From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Southern Ry. Co. v. Clark

Supreme Court of Alabama
Mar 13, 1930
220 Ala. 555 (Ala. 1930)

Opinion

8 Div. 163.

March 13, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; J. Fred Johnson, Jr., Judge.

A. H. Carmichael, of Tuscumbia, for appellant.

Market price or value is ordinarily a matter of fact and not of opinion, and evidence thereof is binding on the triors. L. J. C. Co. v. Lischkoff, 109 Ala. 136, 19 So. 436; H. Curjel Co. v. Hallett Mfg. Co., 198 Ala. 609, 73 So. 938. It is incompetent to show what offers have been made for the property. Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Le Blanc, 74 Miss. 626, 21 So. 748; L., N. O. T. R. Co. v. Ryan, 64 Miss. 399, 8 So. 173. Evidence of the price at which other like land in the same locality sold about the time the property was taken is competent. Ladd v. Ladd, 121 Ala. 583, 25 So. 627.

Andrews, Peach Almon, of Sheffield, for appellee.

The measure of damages for the taking of land by a railway company is the value of the land taken at the time it was taken, with interest thereon from the day of the taking to the date of payment. Jones v. N. O. S. R. Co., 70 Ala. 227; U.S. v. Goodloe, 204 Ala. 484, 86 So. 546; Southern R. Co. v. Cowan, 129 Ala. 588, 29 So. 985. The finding of the register of the facts adduced on oral examination of witnesses has the effect of a jury's verdict, and, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether it is correct, the same will be resolved in favor of the finding, and it will not be disturbed. Ex parte Jackson, 212 Ala. 496, 103 So. 558; Mahone v. Williams, 39 Ala. 202; Jones v. White, 112 Ala. 449, 20 So. 527; Adalex Const. Co. v. Atkins, 214 Ala. 53, 106 So. 338; Bailes v. Bailes, 216 Ala. 569, 114 So. 185. A judgment will not be reversed on the ground that the damages are too great or too small, unless the amount is so excessive or grossly inadequate as to be indicative of prejudice, passion, partiality, or corruption on the part of the jury. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. White, 175 Ala. 60, 56 So. 574.


An action of ejectment was enjoined by complainant, the parties agreeing there was the right of injunction, condemnation of the land for railroad purposes, and the ascertainment of the damages.

In the year 1921 the Southern Railway Company took a strip of respondent's land for the purpose of its facilitated operation of its trains or signal services thereto. The land was adjacent to its tracks and subject to condemnation. The pleading employed was that recognized by this court. Hays v. Ingham-Burnett Lumber Co., 217 Ala. 524, 116 So. 689.

The register ascertained the reasonable value of the land taken as of the time of its occupation by complainant, and computed interest thereon, which report was confirmed by the court. This action of the trial court is supported by Jones v. N. O. S. R. Co., 70 Ala. 227; United States v. Goodloe, 204 Ala. 484, 86 So. 546; Southern Railway Co. v. Cowan, 129 Ala. 577, 29 So. 985. In Hays v. Ingham-Burnett Lumber Co., supra, it is observed ( 217 Ala. 528, 116 So. 689, 693):

"* * * Where a railroad company or such person who has the right of condemnation to acquire the actual possession of the real property of another for a right of way, has taken that possession before acquiring the same by condemnation under the law, and has continued in such possession, lawful interest, or damages in the nature thereof, will be allowed upon the amount of damages as a part of the just compensation from the time of the taking possession to the time of the trial."

The finding of the register of the facts adduced on oral examination of a witness has the effect of the verdict of the jury. Ex parte Jackson, 212 Ala. 496, 103 So. 558; Bidwell v. Johnson et al., 195 Ala. 547, 70 So. 685, and reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the finding will be resolved in sup. port thereof. Mabry v. Ray, 208 Ala. 615, 95 So. 6; Grand Bay Lumber Co. v. Simpson, 207 Ala. 303, 92 So. 789; Porter v. Henderson, 204 Ala. 564, 86 So. 531; Clifford v. Montgomery, 202 Ala. 609, 81 So. 551; Alabama, Tenn. Northern Ry. Co. v. Aliceville Lumber Co. et al., 199 Ala. 391, 74 So. 441; Andrews v. Grey, 199 Ala. 152, 74 So. 62. And under the rule of these cases and that of Central of Georgia Railway Company v. White, 175 Ala. 60, 62, 63, 56 So. 574, the finding of the register was not excessive. Under the rules that obtain as to such finding, and its confirmation by the trial court, the decree is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and BROWN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Southern Ry. Co. v. Clark

Supreme Court of Alabama
Mar 13, 1930
220 Ala. 555 (Ala. 1930)
Case details for

Southern Ry. Co. v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. CLARK

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Mar 13, 1930

Citations

220 Ala. 555 (Ala. 1930)
126 So. 855

Citing Cases

Montgomery v. Alabama Power Co.

30 C.J.S., Equity, § 47; Herbert v. Hobbs, 3 Stew. 9; Stuart v. Strickland, 203 Ala. 502, 83 So. 600; Venable…

Middleton v. St. Louis S. F. R. Co.

And the later cases are to the effect that, where the taking of private property was for a public use and so…