Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 02 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-1932,5-1932 |
| Parties | ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Louis THOMAS et ux., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. R. Thrasher, W. B. Brady, Little Rock, O. Wendell Hall, Jr., Benton, for appellant.
Fred E. Briner, Benton, for appellee.
This is an eminent domain action instituted by the Arkansas State Highway Commission to condemn certain lands owned and leased by appellees, Louis Thomas and wife. Mr. Thomas operated a cattle farm and business composed of approximately 559.51 acres, of which approximately 204 acres were leased from W. R. Hughes, the owner, and 28 additional acres owned outright by appellees, making a total of 232 acres which were located on the east side of the Saline River, and the remainder, (of the 559.51 acre farm) approximately 327.51 acres, owned outright by appellees, was located on the west side of the Saline River. Appellees operated the entire farm as a unit with sufficient access across the river to permit cattle to pass from one side to the other without hinderance. Appellant condemned 7.56 acres of the land owned by the appellees on the west side of the river and 9.37 acres on the east side of the river, 204 acres of the land used by the appellees on the east side of the river having been leased from Hughes as indicated. At the trial before the court sitting as a jury, Thomas and wife, appellees, were permitted to put in issue and try the value of their leasehold interest in the leased Hughes farm on the east side of the river, and in addition, were permitted to put in issue and try the value of their own land that was condemned. Besides the value of their own land, appellees alleged damages because of a severance between their property and the leased farm on the east side of the river and because of an impairment of their leasehold interest. The lessor, Hughes, was not made a party and did not participate in the proceedings. There was a judgment for appellees in the total amount of $10,000. The judgment contains this recital: 'Upon oral motion of plaintiff the court declared this verdict to be composed of: an award of $400.00 per acre for the 7.562 acres taken, or a total of $3,024.80; an award of $3,487.60 for damage to the leasehold interest of Louis Thomas in the lands of Walter R. Hughes and Doris Hughes; and an award of $3,487.60 for damage resulting from a severance of the property of Louis Thomas and Elsie Thomas from the property leased from Walter R. Hughes and Doris Hughes by Louis Thomas, said severance resulting from the taking of land for the aforementioned highway purposes.' From the judgment comes this appeal.
For reversal appellant relies on three points.
I
In his first point he alleges that the trial court committed error in allowing separate trials for the interest of the freeholders (Thomas and wife) and also for their interest as lessees of the Hughes land. Ordinarily in (eminent domain) condemnation cases, such as the present case, our rule is that the interest of the freeholder, his interest as lessee in property leased and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Roberts, 5--5304
...45 Ark. 252. The owner of any interest in the land involved is a proper and necessary party to the action. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Thomas, 231 Ark. 98, 328 S.W.2d 367. There also can be no doubt that a remainderman has no right to possession until the death of the life tenant. ......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Steed, 5--4109
...v. Fox, 230 Ark. 287, 322 S.W.2d 81; Arkansas State Highway Comm. v. Cochran, 230 Ark. 881, 327 S.W.2d 733; Arkansas State Highway Comm. v. Thomas, 231 Ark. 98, 328 S.W.2d 367. In two of these cases it is clearly demonstrated that the lessee's recovery is not limited to his damages on the a......
-
Larrabee v. Town of Knox
...in common, life tenants, remaindermen, lessees, in fact every person having an interest in the land." Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Thomas, 231 Ark. 98, 328 S.W.2d 367, 368 (1959) (citations omitted). Additionally, joining those with interests in the property prevents multiple or inconsi......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Sisson
...on the other is so clear-cut that the issues are properly determinable in a single trial, without severance. Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Thomas, 231 Ark. 98, 328 S.W.2d 367. On cross appeal Sunray, the lessee, raises a number of questions about the admissibility of evidence and the instruct......