(after stating the case). There is no controversy as to the regularity of the proceeding for the condemnation to the use of the plaintiff of the right of way over the defendant’s land for the purpose of constructing and operating the projected branch road, and the only point brought up for review is the rejection of the estimate of advantages to the defendant because of the vagueness in the report.
*134It is not disputed, but in the briefs of counsel of the respective parties conceded, that the benefits conferred upon the owner of the land from the building of the road, the value of which is to go in the lessening his claim for damages resulting from taking and condemning his property, are not such as he shares in common with other land owners or near residents, but such as are special to himself, and the allowance cannot extend beyond the extinguishment of the claim for compensation for the property taken, nor constitute a counter claim for the excess. Asheville v. Johnston, 71 N. C., 399, and other cases referred to in appellant’s brief.
But it is assumed in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and we think rightfully assumed, that the commissioners understood and acted upon the proper rule in estimating the value of these benefits, inasmuch as the defendant was present and did not then insist upon a different rule of admeasurement of the benefits, nor does he state that ground of objection in his exception to the report, at least with any particularity, if at all.
The exception is for that the commissioners in the assessment took into consideration the supposed benefits which might arise from the construction of said branch road, and while they said the defendant’s land was damaged to the extent of 7 acres at $12.50 per acre, they extinguished it in the estimate of benefits “ which defendant is advised and believes is unlawful.”
We do not concur in the opinion of the Judge that greater particularity is required, and that the report' ought to have shown in what the “benefits” estimated consists. A general verdict is sufficient unless error enters into it, and if such there were it ought to appear. The response meets the error, and if it did not objection should have been made when the report was submitted.
There is error, and this will be certified for further action in the Court below.
Error.