Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TENNESSE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY

NOVEMBER 05, 1986

TENNESSE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, A DIVISION OF TENNECO, INC.
v.
JAMES C. AMOS, LUCILLE AMOS BROWN, ABRAHAM AMOS, MARY LEE AMOS ROBBINS, BERDA CATHERINE AMOS, SIMON AMOS, GENEVA AMOS JACKSON, AUBREY LeROY AMOS, CASSANDRA AMOS NORFORD, JOSIE B. AMOS, AND MARILYN AMOS BOYD, AND ANY UNKNOWN HEIRS OF AUBREY AMOS



BEFORE ROY NOBLE LEE, PRATHER and GRIFFIN

ROY NOBLE LEE, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a Division of Tenneco, Inc., appeals from a judgment entered in a Special Court of Eminent Domain, Warren County, Mississippi, awarding a jury verdict to James C. Amos and family in the sum of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for taking 2.023 acres of land for permanent right-of-way and 1.077 acres for a temporary easement. We address only one assigned error and reverse and remand for a new trial.

Appellant's statement of values set the fair market value of the 2.023 acres to be acquired at two thousand dollars ($2,000) and the damages to the temporary easement at five hundred dollars ($500.00) for a total compensation due the landowners at twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500). Its statement as to the highest and best use of the property was grazing land and growing timber.

 The appellees' statement of values set the fair market value of the take and temporary easement at six thousand four hundred four dollars ($6,404.00) and damages to the remainder of the property at seventeen thousand five hundred dollars ($17,500) for a total compensation of twenty-three thousand nine hundred four dollars ($23,904.00). they claim that the highest and best use of the property is rural residential and agricultural with residential subdivision potential.

 The expert witnesses/appraisers for the parties followed the respective statements of values in their testimony.

 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING TESTIMONY AS TO THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ANOTHER EASEMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

 During cross-examination of Mr. Simon Amos, one of the appellees, the appellant asked Mr. Amos if there was another gas pipeline on the property. Mr. Amos responded in the affirmative and stated that the other pipeline ran along the south side of the property. On redirect examination, appellees elicited the following testimony from Mr. Amos:

 Q. This other pipeline easement that was brought to your attention by Mr. Yoste, how much money were you paid for that easement?

 BY MR. YOSTE: To which we object, your honor. It's irrelevant.

 BY THE COURT: I'm going to let him testify.

 Q. How much money were you paid by Placid?

 A. Eight thousand.

 Q. And how much do you receive on an annual basis for that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.