Schlicht v. Clark

Citations

• 114 Miss. 354
• 75 So. 130

Syllabus

<p>1. Eminent Domain. Condemnation proceedings. Drains. Remote damages. Evidence.</p> <p>In a condemnation proceeding under code chapter on drainage for the construction of a drainage canal it was proper for the court - to exclude evidence that it would be necessary to build a fence along either bank of the canal for the purpose of keeping cattle from falling into the ditch. This is too remote to be considered as an element of drainage, where it does not appear that there was any more necessity for a fence with the ditch than there would be if there was no ditch present.</p> <p>2. Eminent Domain. Condemnation proceedings. Drains. Measure of damages.</p> <p>The true rule of estimating damages in condemnation proceedings is the difference in the market value of the property with the improvement and that without it, without considering general benefits or injuries shared by the public in general.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>Evidence as to the particulars or details in which the property will be damaged or benefited by the improvement is admissible so far as the same tends to show the effect of the improvements on the value of the property, but these elements are not admissible as independent items of damage or benefit.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>The rule of damages is not different in drainage districts than in other cases of proceeding under eminent domain.</p>