{
  "id": 8548897,
  "name": "NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. BELLVIE McDONALD; JUANITA EVANS FERGUSON and Husband, HARRY FERGUSON; FAIRY MARTIN and Wife, LYLE MARTIN; NAWASSEE DICKEY MILLER and Husband, JACK S. MILLER; JOHN L. DICKEY and Wife, GWEN DICKEY; AHNAWAKE DICKEY BULL and Husband, CHARLES BULL; and MRS. G. WILLIAM DICKEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "North Carolina State Highway Commission v. McDonald",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7030SC180",
  "first_page": "56",
  "last_page": "58",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 56"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "62 S.E. 2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 653",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612192
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0653-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S.E. 133",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N.C. 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659439
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S.E. 2d 139",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567557
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0345-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 390,
    "char_count": 5506,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47318164109181654
    },
    "sha256": "2c14b37fdb76b52eb3919ec24aeda134417ce568e9ff7b122895b9f6e2949942",
    "simhash": "1:4ca7855e63df73a1",
    "word_count": 908
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BrocK and Graham, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. BELLVIE McDONALD; JUANITA EVANS FERGUSON and Husband, HARRY FERGUSON; FAIRY MARTIN and Wife, LYLE MARTIN; NAWASSEE DICKEY MILLER and Husband, JACK S. MILLER; JOHN L. DICKEY and Wife, GWEN DICKEY; AHNAWAKE DICKEY BULL and Husband, CHARLES BULL; and MRS. G. WILLIAM DICKEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, J.\nPlaintiff\u2019s sole assignment of error relates to the cross-examination of plaintiff\u2019s witness, Mark Elliott, by defendants\u2019 counsel. The questions, answers and rulings of the court complained of are set forth in the record as follows:\n\u201cMR. HYDE: Do you know of any recent sales, do you know about the sales that Mr. Jones made of the land, yesterday \u2014\nMR. HAMLIN: Objection. After the take.\nTHE COURT: Overruled. Exception. Now members of the jury, as to what happened yesterday: you will not consider that as bearing upon the fair market value of this property; you may consider it as bearing upon the weight and credit you\u2019ll give to the testimony of this witness.\nEXCEPTION NO. 1\nMR. HYDE: Do you know about that sale?\nANSWER: I heard him talking about it, but I couldn\u2019t quote any of the figures.\nMR. HYDE: I\u2019ll ask you, to refresh your recollection: if he didn\u2019t give $12,000.00 for 20 acres of land in Talulla Gap \u2014\nMR. HAMLIN: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Overruled.\nEXCEPTION NO. 2\nANSWER: I couldn\u2019t say.\nMR. HYDE: \u25a0 \u2014 and if it wasn\u2019t as steep as a horse\u2019s face?\nANSWER: I heard him say it was steep, but I couldn\u2019t verify the figures.\u201d\nPlaintiff contends that the type of cross-examination quoted above was held erroneous in Carver v. Lykes, 262 N.C. 345, 137 S.E. 2d 139 (1964). In that opinion, written by Sharp, J., we find the following:\n\u201c* * * [T]he judge heard no evidence in the absence of the jury or otherwise made any attempt to determine whether there was a sufficient similarity between the properties to render such evidence competent. So far as the record discloses, proximity of location and the Power Company\u2019s requirement of the properties constituted the only similarity between defendant\u2019s land and those with which he attempted to compare its value. Furthermore, it was also error to permit the cross-examination of plaintiff by such questions as \u2018Do you know he (Moody) sold two acres to Carolina Power and Light Company for $1,375.00 an acre?\u2019 The \u2018utmost freedom of cross-examination\u2019 to test a witness\u2019 knowledge of values, mentioned in Barnes v. Highway Commission, supra, does not mean that counsel may ask the witness if he doesn\u2019t know that a certain individual sold his property for a stated sum with no proof of the actual sales price other than the implication in his question. Bennett v. R. R., 170 N.C. 389, 87 S.E. 133, 16D L.R.A. 1074. * * *\u201d\nAlthough we adhere to the principles of law set forth in Carver v. Lykes, supra, and hold that the cross-examination of the witness \u25a0Elliott above quoted constituted error, for the reasons hereinafter stated we do not believe such error was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.\nAfter Mr. Elliott testified, plaintiff called Sam W. Jones as its witness to testify as to the value of the subject property immediately before and immediately after the taking. Plaintiff concedes that Sam W. Jones is the same \u201cMr. Jones\u201d referred to in the cross-examination complained of. On cross-examination, witness Jones, without objection, testified to\u2019the following:\n\u201cI contracted to sell some property, mountain land. I actually haven\u2019t sold it yet, but I hope it\u2019s in the process. The consideration in that transaction is seventy-six and a half acres, $12,000.00. The property is just about as rough as I\u2019ve ever seen. I have not bought or sold any property down there in the vicinity of the subject property.\u201d\nAs was said in Carver v. Lykes, supra, \u201c[t] he'admission of this evidence without objection rendered harmless the previously admitted evidence of similar import over objection.\u201d Price v. Whisnant, 232 N.C. 653, 62 S.E. 2d 56 (1950). Furthermore, the cross-examination of Jones disclosed that the tract of land he was in process of selling contained 76% acres rather than 20 acres as indicated in the cross-examination of Elliott. This had the effect of further minimizing the error.\nNo error.\nBrocK and Graham, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, Deputy Attorney, General Harrison Lewis and Trial Attorney Guy A. Hamlin for the State.",
      "C. E. Hyde and Leonard W. Lloyd for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. BELLVIE McDONALD; JUANITA EVANS FERGUSON and Husband, HARRY FERGUSON; FAIRY MARTIN and Wife, LYLE MARTIN; NAWASSEE DICKEY MILLER and Husband, JACK S. MILLER; JOHN L. DICKEY and Wife, GWEN DICKEY; AHNAWAKE DICKEY BULL and Husband, CHARLES BULL; and MRS. G. WILLIAM DICKEY\nNo. 7030SC180\n(Filed 6 May 1970)\nEminent Domain \u00a7 6\u2014 value of nearby property \u2014 cross-examination of witness\nAlthough it was error in a highway condemnation proceeding to permit landowner\u2019s counsel to cross-examine the Commission\u2019s witness as to whether the witness knew that a named individual had sold twenty acres of his property for $12,000, there being no actual proof of the sales price, such error was not prejudicial where the named individual thereafter testified, without objection, that he had contracted to sell 76% acres of his property for $12,000.\nAppeal by plaintiff from McLean, J., 27 October 1969 Special Civil Session of Cheroicee Superior Court.\nThis is a civil action brought by plaintiff for the condemnation of a portion of a tract of land owned by defendants. The only issue at trial was the amount defendants were entitled to recover of plaintiff as just compensation for the appropriation of a portion of their property for highway purposes on 30 November 1967. The jury returned a verdict of $20,000 and from judgment entered on the verdict plaintiff appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, Deputy Attorney, General Harrison Lewis and Trial Attorney Guy A. Hamlin for the State.\nC. E. Hyde and Leonard W. Lloyd for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0056-01",
  "first_page_order": 80,
  "last_page_order": 82
}
