The opinion
On Motion for Rehearing.
At a former day of this term, tbe judgment of tbe trial court in this cause was reversed, and tbe cause remanded, and in due time appellees filed tbeir motion for rehearing. We have carefully considered tbe motion, and have reached tbe conclusion that same should be overruled.
Counsel for appellees have suggested that our opinion in this case is susceptible of tbe construction that counsel contended that ap-pellees were entitled to recover tbe difference in tbe market value of tbe remainder of tbe land before construction and at tbe time of trial below, and that all items of injury occurring up to tbe time of trial were to be legitimately considered. We do not think that tbe opinion is, in fact, susceptible of such construction, but at tbe request of counsel, we here now state, in bis own words, bis contention on this point:
“The landowner is entitled to recover the difference in the market value of the remainder of his land just before and just after the construction of the works, or the difference in value with or -without the public works thereon, irrespective of the time or the method by which the damages were arrived at and assessed.”
We were unable to agree witb counsel on this point, in view of tbe facts in this case, and we think our reason is sufficiently stated in tbe opinion.
Tbe motion for rehearing is overruled.