Statement. none of it had been divided into town lots, and there was no bridge across Wolf creek by which said land could be reached from the town of Narrows except a swinging foot bridge across the creek a short distance below the Johnson lands. "The witness further testified that the line proposed to be constructed by the petitioners would be of no particular damage to the land of the defendant Johnson after it was put up, if it did not break down, except the going on and over the land by the agents of the petitioner whenever and however they choose and keeping the trees cut back; that the principal thing in his mind in fixing the amount set out in his report was the constant uneasiness or fear that the line would break down some time and might kill somebody or some stock or might do some injury to other property. * testified "G. F. Straley, another witness, that he was one of the commissioners who went upon the defendant's land pursuant to the order of the court herein; that he heard the various statements made by the defendant and his father in the course of the hearing before him, about accidents on other electric power lines, about the probability of the defendant's land being hereafter required for railroad terminal purposes in case of the possible extension of the Narrows branch of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, and also the probability of the defendant at some time cutting this land up into lots and selling the same, but that none of these statements influenced him in making up his judgment in this matter, and that he considered that the farm might be worth $2,500.00 less money with this power line through it. "On cross-examination the witness stated that he considered that a line of this kind would be a nuisance and that the principal thing that influenced him in making Statement. the award of $2,500.00 was the constant anxiety and fear that the line would break down or kill or injure persons or live stock or do some other injury; that the bottom land through which the proposed line would run is worth from $160.00 to $200.00 per acre for trucking purposes, and that there would be only one structure on the bottom land, that if the power company was liable for future damages for negligence he supposed that the sum awarded would be somewhat high. "R. H. Woods, another witness, as follows: testified "That he was also one of the commissioners who went upon the land on the 17th day of July, 1922, pursuant to the order of the court herein, that while he heard the evidence referred to in the testimony of the other witnesses herein, and the objections of counsel for the power company hereto, such evidence did not influence him in making up his judgment in this matter; that what he considered more than anything else was the fear of the line breaking down and injuring persons or property. "J. E. Hopkins, another witness, as follows: testified "That at one time he offered the defendant Johnson $18,000.00 for the farm through which the proposed line runs; that he would not want it at all with the power line constructed through it. "That if he owned it he would not have the line through it for $2,500.00 and that he thought it would diminish the market value of the place by that amount; that what he wanted it for was to sell a part of it into lots. "Clarence H. Johnson, the defendant, another wittestified as follows: ness, * "That he is the owner of the land through which the Statement. line proposed to be constructed runs; that it is a tract of farming land containing about 223 acres; that he was offered $22,000.00 for the land, and offered it to J. E. Hopkins for $20,000.00 as it then stood, but since that time has added somewhat to the acreage. He thought he ought to have $5,000.00 damage for the right of way for the petitioner's power line as laid out; that he contemplated having part of the land laid out in town lots, and had at one time a rough draft of a plot or plan made of it, but no actual map had ever been made and no lots had ever been offered for sale. "That the proposed line would be between his dwelling house and the main part of the town of Narrows, would run about 300 feet from his dwelling and about 200 feet from the tenant's house on his place; that it would also pass over a part of his orchard in which there was no structures. "On cross-examination the witness stated that he paid about $9,000.00 for the 203 acres of this land several years ago; that he has since bought twenty acres more, and did not remember the price he paid for the twenty acres; that he had since its first purchase improved the land in respect to the buildings thereon and the clearing up of a part thereof. "That the present transmission line now running through his place and operated by the Giles Power Company was constructed some years ago and has been since in continuous operation; that it was constructed and in operation at the time he tried to sell his land for $22,000.00 and at the time he was offered $18,000.00 therefor. "That when he was first approached about the matter by Mr. Phelps, representing the power company, which was sometime last spring, he agreed to take $250.00 for the right of way for this line through his Opinion. lands to be constructed on five steel towers as shown on the map filed herein; that afterwards he increased his price, and on the 27th of March, 1922, he wrote a letter to Martin Williams, Sr., one of the attorneys for the Appalachian Power Company, in which he agreed to take $1,000.00 in full for the right of way and all damages, but subsequently refused that and demanded $5,000.00. Witness was here shown a letter which is filed as evidence in the cause (the letter to Mr. Williams), but he stated that after this letter was written and after further consideration of the matter, he concluded that his damage would be much more than he then thought it would be." Thereupon the power company moved the court "to sustain the exceptions filed to the report of the commissioners returned herein, and further moved the court to set aside said report and appoint other commissioners;" but the court overruled such motions, refused to sustain any of said exceptions, and entered the order under review, which confirmed the said report. Robert E. Scott and Martin Williams, for the plaintiff in error. W. B. Snidow, for the defendant in error. SIMS, J., after making the foregoing statement, delivered the following opinion of the court: So far as necessary for the decision of the case, the questions raised by the assignments of error will be disposed of in their order as stated below. 1. Does it appear from the evidence that the award of the commissioners in the instant case was arrived at through a misconception of the principles of law which should have governed them in their action? Opinion. The question must be answered in the affirmative. There are two principles which should govern commissioners in assessing the damages for the property and property rights proposed to be taken in a condemnation proceeding. [1] First. Where the property and property rights proposed to be taken have a present fair market value, that value, at the time of the taking, is the "just compensation" to which the owner is entitled under the constitutional provisions on the subject, and is the measure of the award the commissioners should make to the owner therefor; and not the value after future development of the property, or in the vicinity of it, has been made. R. & M. R. R. Co. v. Humphreys, 90 Va. 425, 18 S. E. 901; Richmond & P. Electric R. Co. v. Seaboard, etc., Co., 103 Va. 399, 49 S. E. 512; Swift v. Newport News, 105 Va. 108, 52 S. E. 821, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 404; Tidewater R. Co. v. Cowan, 106 Va. 817, 56 S. E. 819; Hunter v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 107 Va. 158, 59 S. E. 415, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 124. [2] Second. Future apprehended damages due to negligent construction or operation of the works of the condemnor cannot, as such, be legally included in the award of the commissioners; for the law furnishes a remedy in the future for the recovery of all such damages, and the right to such recovery is not at all affected by the condemnation proceeding. Alloway v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 510, 13 S. W. 123, 8 L. R. A. 123; Central Georgia Power Co. v. Mays, 137 Ga. 120, 72 S. E. 900. [3, 4] On the question which arises under the statute (Code, section 4369), upon exceptions to the report of the commissioners in a condemnation proceeding, of whether "good cause be shown against the report," in Tidewater R. Co. v. Cowan, supra (106 Va. at p. 824, 56 S. E. at p. 821), this is said: "The main question in |