Gentry v. Richmond, R. R.

Citations

• 38 S.C. 284
• 16 S.E. 893
• 1893 S.C. LEXIS 50

Syllabus

<p>. Evidence. — In action to recover damages for injury done to land by the breaking of a culvert, testimony of the price for which adjacent land soid four years afterwards, and testimony of a witness, who had but slight after-acquired knowledge of the land, was competent.</p> <p>2. Injury to Land — Measure op Damages — Crops.—In such an action, claiming damages only for injury done to the land, the measure of damages is the value of the land before and after the injury. While the value of the crops made might aid in estimating the value of the land, the loss of crops cannot be considered in fixing the amount of damages.</p> <p>3. Cases Criticised. — This case distinguished from Hammond v. Port Royal, &c., Railway Company, 15 S. C., 10, and Devereux v. Champion Cotton Press Company, l1? Id., 66.</p> <p>4. Exceptions — Record.—A ground of appeal dismissed, because based upon a ground unsupported by the record.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — An exception simply alleging error “in refusing the motion for new trial,” cannot be considered on appeal.</p> <p>6. Charging Juries — Limiting Recovery. — The action being to recover damages to land above by reason of an embankment erected in 1881, and also the damages to land below by reason of the breaking of the embankment in 1886, the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that in estimating the damages, they could go back only to 1886.</p>