{ "id": 1737973, "name": "Ark. State Hwy. Comm. v. Byrd", "name_abbreviation": "Ark. State Hwy. Comm. v. Byrd", "decision_date": "1964-04-06", "docket_number": "5-3249", "first_page": "905", "last_page": "908", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "237 Ark. 905" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "377 S.W.2d 165" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "237 Ark. 46", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1737908 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0046-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 Ark. 945", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1681410 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/236/0945-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 376, "char_count": 6228, "ocr_confidence": 0.479, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.06523971088661926 }, "sha256": "7c3f12e4d76834c5cc6d5b741c4b20897f4d5db64507e5189d2eba39e115d8f0", "simhash": "1:a01c4da875517118", "word_count": 1090 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:18.904164+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ark. State Hwy. Comm.v. Byrd." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.\nThis is a condemnation case. Pursuant to filing its Declaration of Taking, the Arkansas Highway Commission condemned and took possession of 0.09 acres of land belonging to C. D. Byrd and wife. On September 10, 1963, a jury was impanelled for the purpose of hearing evidence and determining the amount of compensation to which Mr. Byrd and his wife were entitled because of the taking and damage to their land. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $7,000, and from such judgment comes, this appeal.\nFor reversal, the Highway Commission relies upon two points, but it is only .necessary that we discuss the first point, since we are of the view that the court committed error in permitting certain testimony. The evidence offered by appellees consisted of the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Byrd. The Byrds had operated a restaurant for several years before the condemnation proceedings. Tliey operated in one building for about four years, and then built a new building back of the old one, tearing down the older structure in order to have space for a parking lot. In testifying, Mr. Byrd stated that a little better than half of his parking area was condemned. In mentioning various factors which were taken into consideration in reaching his determination of the before (condemnation) and after (condemnation) value, Mr. Byrd\u2019s testimony reveals the following:\n\u201cQ. Ted, how many years did you operate out there in this old building?\nA. Oh, I would say approximately four years or better.\nQ. Did you include that forty-two hundred dollars in expenses that you were out when you tore down the old building in your estimate of before and after value?\nA. Well, I estimated the building of the building and the tearing down and disposing of it\u2014of what it cost to build it and dispose of it.\nMr. Stanley: At this time we move to strike the testimony of this witness with reference to the before and afer value for the reason he stated he included forty-two hundred dollars it cost him to destroy an old building prior to the time he constructed the building now in question.\nThe Court: Will you read back the question and answer ?\nMr. Stanley: I\u2019ll restate the question.\nThe Court: If you would.\nQ. Ted, in arriving at the before and after value \u2014there\u2019s been some testimony that it cost forty-two hundred dollars to tear down the old building and build your new building\u2014I believe -it was forty-two hundred dollars\u2014\u25a0\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Now, my question was did you include that in arriving at your before and after value in your claim for just compensation here today?\nA. I don\u2019t know if I get that exactly or not.\nQ. Did you consider that forty-two hundred dollars when you were arriving at what you felt was the difference in the fair market value of your property before and after the taking?\nA. No, sir, that was valued in on the value of the property before the taking. In other words, that\u2019s what it cost me to dispose of the building in order to have that parking area.\nMr. Stanley: We move to strike.\nThe Court: Motion denied.\u201d\nMrs. Byrd also testified that it cost around $4,200.00 to construct, and tear down, the old building. The Highway Department attorney objected to this testimony.\nHighway attorney: \u201cYour honor, we\u2019re going to have to object to this line of questioning because it has nothing to do with the value of the premises as of 16 March 1962.\u201d\nAppellee\u2019s attorney: \u201cI don\u2019t know whether it does or not, it\u2019s a fact.\u201d\nHighway attorney: \u201cHe\u2019s questioning now if there is evidence as to\u2014\u201d\nAppellee\u2019s attorney: \u201cThat they tore down a building that cost them about forty-two hundred dollars, including the cost of tearing it down, in building a new one. I mean that\u2019s all I\u2019m doing,\u201d\nThe objection was overruled.\nOf course, in arriving at a before and after value, appellees were entitled to show the value of the land, together with the improvements thereon at the time of the taking, and the value of the propei\u2019ty after the taking\u2014but not the cost of an improvement- that had formerly been placed on the land but which had been removed prior to the condemnation, for after the building had been removed, that portion of the land was in its original condition, and its value was neither greater nor .less because- of the fact that' a building had been located thereon for about four years.\n. Appellees state that the motion of appellant was not proper because it moved to strike all of Mr. Byrd\u2019s'testimony. We have held on several occasions that this is not a proper motion if any of the witnesses\u2019 testimony is admissible. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Wilmans, 236 Ark. 945, 370 S. W. 2d 802. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Carpenter, 237 Ark. 46, 371 S. W. 2d 535. Appellees are mistaken as to the motion made in the instant case. It will be noted .that the motion, set out above, only seeks to strike the testimony of Byrd with reference to the before and after value. This motion was proper and should have been granted. It is clear that in reaching his evaluation of the- fair market value of the entire premises before the taking, Byrd was permitted to include the cost .of constructing, and tearing down, the ,old building in\u2019order to enlarge his parking lot, and this occurred quite a period of time before the taking by the Highway Department. Under the facts in this case, either of these costs was inadmissible.\nFrom what has been said, it is apparent that the court erred in overruling the objection made to the portion of Mrs. Byrd\u2019s testimony dealing with the expense of constructing and tearing down the old building, and likewise erred in refusing- to strike the testimony of Mr. Byrd in regard to the before and after value because of the fact that Byrd, in reaching his before value figure, considered the $4,200.00 which he stated was the cost of erecting and tearing down the old building.\nReversed.\nThe Byrds also had their home located on the premises, a little back and north of the new building.\nA strip, approximately 38 feet wide across the front was taken.", "type": "majority", "author": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mark E. Woolsey and Bill B. Demmer, for appellant.", "Hall, Purcell & Bosioell, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ark. State Hwy. Comm.v. Byrd.\n5-3249\n377 S. W. 2d 165\nOpinion delivered April 6, 1964.\nMark E. Woolsey and Bill B. Demmer, for appellant.\nHall, Purcell & Bosioell, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0905-01", "first_page_order": 927, "last_page_order": 930 }