
    State Highway Commission v. Dornbusch et al.
    
    (Division A.
    Feb. 12, 1940.)
    [193 So. 783.
    No. 33906.]
    E. E. Holmes, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for appellant.
    
      Chaney & Culkin, and R. M. Kelly, all of Vicksburg, for appellees.
   Griffith,-J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The question at issue here is the recoverable value of a strip of land containing approximately one acre, being taken for. state,-highway, purposes. A> material poa?tip?iof the testimony introduced,by. tfie, owners was of offers, to purchase made prior to. the. taking. In the recent cuse, State Highway Commission v. Johnson, 191 So. 820, 821, this court said: “It is definitely settled in this, State,, in,. accord with;the rule in.nearly.every, jurisdiction,, tfia.t an-offer for property is-not.admissible, as.evidence of value,” citing cases.

And the -same -argument is made here as in thgt case— that. inasmuch, as there was other competent evidence,, the stated error should not cause a, reversal.; But so. much prominence was.given,in.th;e, present case. to. the erroneous evidence that we. cannot say, with, any.-confi.-, dence. that fit was harmless..

Reversed ;and ¡remanded.  