Weaver v. Georgia Power Company., 134 Ga. App. 696, 215 S.E.2d 503 (1975)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.
Text
Walters & Davis, W. Emory Walters, Jay, Garden & Sherrell, Robert E. Sherrell, for appellant.
Involved in this case is the value of an easement in a 35.93-acre strip, 150 feet wide, in the middle of a 950-acre tract of farm land in Irwin County, taken in a condemnation action by Georgia Power Company for the purpose of erecting a high tension electric transmission line. From the award by the special master and judgment thereon, the condemnee made timely appeal to the superior court and a trial by jury as to value. Following verdict and judgment, condemnee appeals to this court, enumerating seven alleged errors. Held:
1. Enumerations of error 1 and 2 charge the court with error in failing to allow the condemnee on cross examination to elicit from two expert witnesses of condemnor what amount each was paid for his appraisal services. Both witnesses testified on direct and cross examination that they made appraisals on a fee basis and were paid.
Where expert witnesses have testified for a condemnor that they do appraisals on a fee basis, according to the time consumed, and are paid for their services, and that they do appraisals for parties other than the condemnor, this sufficiently puts to the jury the issue of their credibility and interest, and it was not error for the trial court to sustain objections to questions seeking to elicit from the witnesses the amount of their fees. Every party has the right to a thorough and sifting cross examination of witnesses called against him (Code 38-1705), but the trial judge nevertheless has a discretion to control the right of cross examination within reasonable bounds, which will not be controlled by a reviewing court unless it is abused. Fouraker v. State,
4. Error is assigned on the exclusion from evidence of a certified copy of a subdivision plat of a portion of condemnee's property. A map made by a surveyor of the premises involved in an action for land is admissible to illustrate other testimony in the case, provided it is proved to be correct. Napier v. Little,
6. Our ruling upon the denial of condemnee's motion for new trial is dependent upon our rulings on the other enumerations; and having found no reversible error in those enumerations, we accordingly hold that there was no error in denying the motion for new trial.
Bennett, Pedrick & Bennett, E. Kontz Bennett, W. Grady Pedrick, Mixon & Mixon, Harry Mixon, for appellee.
1975
Sponsored links
