Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha, No. 34971

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtMESSMORE; SIMMONS
Citation173 Neb. 229,113 N.W.2d 486
Docket NumberNo. 34971
Decision Date02 February 1962
PartiesThe BALLANTYNE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee, v. The CITY OF OMAHA, a municipal corporation, Appellant.

Page 486

113 N.W.2d 486
173 Neb. 229
The BALLANTYNE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee,
v.
The CITY OF OMAHA, a municipal corporation, Appellant.
No. 34971.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Feb. 2, 1962.

Syllabus By The Court

1. Section 25-852, R.R.S.1943, provides in part that the court may, either before of after judgment, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, amend any proceeding.

2. The term "proceeding" as used in the above section of the statutes includes filing of an appeal bond, and the right to amend such bond is within the purview of the statute.

3. Section 25-853, R.R.S.1943, provides that the court in every stage of an action must disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party; and no judgment shall be reversed or afflicted by reason of such error or defect.

4. The right to amend an appeal bond is within the purview of the above-cited section of the statutes.

5. In the absence of a statute or agreement to the contrary, the removal expenses of a lessee, including injury to personal property, caused by said removal, from a leasehold or fee in land, where there is an entire taking of the whole of the condemnee's estate under the sovereign power of eminent domain, cannot be considered as an element of damage, since such loss is not a taking of property.

6. The measure of damages in the taking or injury of a leasehold is the difference between the rental value of the remainder of the term and the rent reserved in the lease.

7. If a leasehold interest is taken, or injured, the lessee is entitled to a sum which will restore the money loss consequent to the taking or injury.

8. This consists generally of the fair market value of the leasehold or unexpired term of the lease, and is said to be the difference between the rental value of the remainder of the term and the rent reserved in the lease.

9. Where the rent reserved equals or exceeds the rental value, the lessee has suffered no loss and cannot recover.

Herbert M. Fitle, Bernard E. Vinardi, Irving B. Epstein,[173 Neb. 230] Frederick A. Brown, Benjamin M. Wall, Edward M. Stein, Steven J. Lustgarten, Omaha, for appellant.

Seymour L. Smith, Einar Viren, Omaha, for appellee.

Heard before CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, and BROWER, JJ.

MESSMORE, Justice.

The plaintiff and claimant, The Ballantyne Company, a corporation, appealed to the district court for Douglas County from the award of the appraisers duly appointed by the city council of the City of Omaha in a condemnation action allowing said plaintiff no damages.

The Ballantyne Company, plaintiff, is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Nebraska. The City of Omaha, defendant, is a city of the metropolitan class by virtue of the laws of the State of Nebraska.

Page 488

We will refer to The Ballantyne Company, a corporation, as the plaintiff or the company, to the City of Omaha as the defendant or, on some occasions, as the city, and to the other parties involved in this cause by their names.

The condemnation proceedings instituted by the city were for the purpose of obtaining certain private property upon which to construct a municipal auditorium.

It was stipulated by the parties that this cause be tried to the court without a jury.

The trial court found generally for the plaintiff and against the defendant, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant the sum of $45,871.26. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the findings, in the amount of $45,871.26, with lawful interest from the date of the judgment, and the costs of the action.

The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was overruled. The defendant perfected appeal to this court.

The plaintiff's amended petition alleged in substance that the plaintiff was the lessee of a tract of land being acquired by the defendant; that the plaintiff sustained [173 Neb. 231] damages by reason of the taking of the leasehold and as a consequence suffered expenses of removal, moving, and relocating trade fixtures; and that the plaintiff required a special type of building for its business and suffered expense of making a new building suitable for its purpose, and claimed damages in the amount of $69,257.96, plus interest at 6 percent per annum from and after July 10, 1951.

The answer of the city admitted that the city had instituted condemnation proceedings. The answer alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages; that the finding on the part of appraisers allowing no damages to the plaintiff was legal and just; and that the plaintiff failed to perfect its appeal to the district court by reason of the filing of a faulty bond with the city clerk of the city of Omaha.

The defendant assigns as error that the trial court was without jurisdiction; that the judgment is contrary to law and to the evidence; and that there was error of law occurring at the trial.

The defendant contends that the appeal bond in this case was jurisdictional.

The appeal bond filed with the city clerk of the city of Omaha was an undertaking in the specific amount of $200. The above bond was filed with the city clerk, and the surety approved by the city clerk July 12, 1951. On December 19, 1956, the plaintiff filed a motion asking leave to file an additional appeal bond, which was allowed. The additional appeal bond provided to pay all costs adjudged against the plaintiff.

Section 14-813, R.R.S.1943, provides in part: 'Whenever the right of appeal is conferred by this act, the procedure, unless otherwise provided shall be substantially as follows: The claimant or appellant shall, within twenty days from the date of the order complained of, execute a bond to such city with sufficient surety to be approved by the clerk, conditioned for the faithful prosecution of such appeal, and the payment of all [173 Neb. 232] costs adjudged against the appellant. Such bond shall be filed in the office of the city clerk. It shall be the duty of the city clerk, on payment or tender to him of the costs of the transcript, * * * to prepare a complete transcript of the proceedings of the city relating to their decision thereon. It shall be the duty of the claimant or appellant to file a petition in the district court as in the commencement of an action within thirty days from the date of the order or award appealed from, and he shall also file such transcript before answer day. The proceedings of the district court shall thereafter be the same as on appeal from the county board. Any taxpayer may appeal from the allowance of any claim against the city by giving a bond and complying with the foregoing provisions; * * *.'

In the case of Creighton University v. City of Omaha, 91 Neb. 486, 136 N.W. 829, it was said: 'The inquiry arises as to what

Page 489

step it is that is to be taken by an appellant, in order to confer jurisdiction upon the district court? We take it as not to be questioned that the jurisdiction is obtained by the filing of some pleading or process therein. As appears therein, the section under consideration provides, 'It shall be the duty of the claimant or appellant to file a petition in the district court as in the commencement of an action within thirty days from date of the order or award appealed from,' and he shall file the transcript before answer day. Thereafter the proceedings shall be the same as appeals from the county board. This provides a departure from the law of ordinary appeals. It is not the filing of the transcript that gives jurisdiction; for it may be filed at any time before answer day. The petition is the first filing to be made, and that must be filed within the 30 days named. Until that is done, the case is not in court, nor within its jurisdiction. This seems to be the plain provision of the section. It is within the power of the legislature to make the change from the usual course of procedure. The provision is a special one, probably [173 Neb. 233] enacted for the purpose of expediting the settlement of questions which may arise in the matter of grading and paving streets. We can see no way of escape from its direction.'

Section 25-852, R.R.S.1943, provides in part: 'The court may, either before or after judgment, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, amend any pleading, process or proceeding, * * * when the amendment does not change substantially the claim or defense, by conforming the pleading or proceeding to the facts proved. Whenever any proceeding taken by a party fails to conform, in any respect, to the provisions of this code, the court may permit the same to be made conformable thereto by amendment.'

The term 'proceeding' as used in the statute includes filing of appeal bond, and the right to amend such bond is within the purview of the statute. See In re Estate of Kothe, 131 Neb. 780, 270 N.W. 117. In the cited case it was said: 'This court has frequently held that where a bond is given, even if defective, still the court has obtained jurisdiction, and that the proper procedure is for the adverse party to move to compel the appellant to give a proper bond in an amount and condition as required by law; * * *.'

Section 25-853, R.R.S.1943, provides: 'The court in every stage of an action must disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party; and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect.'

The right to amend an appeal bond is within the purview of the statute. See In re Estate of Hoagland, 128 Neb. 219, 258 N.W. 538. In the cited case the court said: 'In this O'Dea case [O'Dea v. Washington County, 3 Neb. 118] the following rule was announced by this court: 'Steps taken by filing an appeal bond to obtain a review of an award made by appraisers, of damages on account of the laying out of a public highway, is a proceeding in an action,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Balog v. State, Dept. of Roads, No. 35738
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 20, 1964
    ...the difference between the rental value of the remainder of the term and the rent reserved in the lease. Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha, 173 Neb. 229, 113 N.W.2d 486. If the rent reserved equals or exceeds the rental value, the lessee suffers no loss and cannot recover. Where the entire le......
  • Pieper v. City of Scottsbluff, No. 35501
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • March 13, 1964
    ...The contention of the city is that by the cases of James Poultry Co. v. City of Nebraska City, supra, and Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha, 173 Neb. 229, 113 N.W.2d 486, the rule announced therein prohibits showing anticipated loss of future profits, therefore Stricker's testimony was errone......
  • State Dept. of Roads v. Dillon, No. 35369
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • May 31, 1963
    ...have abated together. This general rule was followed last year by this court in the recent case of Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha, 173 Neb. 229, 113 N.W.2d 486, which case in turn cited Platte Valley Public Power & Irr. Dist. v. Armstrong, 159 Neb. 609, 68 N.W.2d 200, and other cases as pr......
  • Utah Road Comn. v. Hansen, No. 9679
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 12, 1963
    ...146 Cal.App.2d 762, 304 P.2d 803; 18 Am.Jur., p. 895. 4 Cf. Wilkerson et al. v. Grand River Dam Authority, 195 Okl. 678, 161 P.2d 745. 5 173 Neb. 229, 113 N.W.2d 6 See: Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Anderson, 88 Ark. 129, 113 S.W. 1030; St. Louis, K. N. W. R. Co. v. Knapp-Stort & Co., 160 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Balog v. State, Dept. of Roads, No. 35738
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 20, 1964
    ...the difference between the rental value of the remainder of the term and the rent reserved in the lease. Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha, 173 Neb. 229, 113 N.W.2d 486. If the rent reserved equals or exceeds the rental value, the lessee suffers no loss and cannot recover. Where the entire le......
  • Pieper v. City of Scottsbluff, No. 35501
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • March 13, 1964
    ...The contention of the city is that by the cases of James Poultry Co. v. City of Nebraska City, supra, and Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha, 173 Neb. 229, 113 N.W.2d 486, the rule announced therein prohibits showing anticipated loss of future profits, therefore Stricker's testimony was errone......
  • State Dept. of Roads v. Dillon, No. 35369
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • May 31, 1963
    ...have abated together. This general rule was followed last year by this court in the recent case of Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha, 173 Neb. 229, 113 N.W.2d 486, which case in turn cited Platte Valley Public Power & Irr. Dist. v. Armstrong, 159 Neb. 609, 68 N.W.2d 200, and other cases as pr......
  • Utah Road Comn. v. Hansen, No. 9679
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 12, 1963
    ...146 Cal.App.2d 762, 304 P.2d 803; 18 Am.Jur., p. 895. 4 Cf. Wilkerson et al. v. Grand River Dam Authority, 195 Okl. 678, 161 P.2d 745. 5 173 Neb. 229, 113 N.W.2d 6 See: Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Anderson, 88 Ark. 129, 113 S.W. 1030; St. Louis, K. N. W. R. Co. v. Knapp-Stort & Co., 160 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT