Board of Com'rs of Jefferson County v. Noble
| Citation | 184 P.2d 142,117 Colo. 77 |
| Decision Date | 11 August 1947 |
| Docket Number | 15686 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY v. NOBLE et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Error to District Court, Jefferson County; Osmer E. Smith, Judge.
Condemnation proceeding by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, against Willie Armetia Noble and others. To review an adverse judgment, the Board brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
Emory L. O'Connell, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
A D Quaintance and E. B. Evans, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
These parties occupy the same relative position in this court as below. Plaintiff in error in hereinafter referred to as the Board, and defendant in error as Noble.
The Board brought suit pursuant to Chapter 61, Volume 3, '35 C.S.A. to condemn a portion of Noble's land, consisting of a strip 30 feet in width by 666 2/3 feet in length, for public road purposes. Home Owners Loan Corporation and Burgess, Public Trustee, were joined as parties defendant by virtue of a deed of trust under which said strip and other land owned by Noble were conveyed as security for the payment of a promissory note. Noble demanded a jury of freeholders and after trial, a verdict was rendered for: (a) $380.00 representing the value of the land actually taken by the Board; and (b) $100.00 damages to the residue of the land owned by Noble.
A motion for a new trial was duly filed and overruled. Judgment was entered upon the verdict for $480.00. To reverse that judgment the Board prosecutes this writ, assigning seven errors, as follows: (1) The giving of instructions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, damages to residue; (2) allowance of $100.00 damages to residue of Noble's land not taken, as improper unsupported by the evidence, and contrary to law; (3) overruling motion for a new trial and entering judgment upon the verdict.
(1, 2) Noble testified and the evidence clearly shows: That prior to this proceeding the City and County of Denver had installed 160 feet of 12-inch tile pipe inside respondent's then existing fence for the purpose of carrying irrigation and drainage waters from the road and her premises; that prior to the construction and widening of said road she requested the removal of pipe from strip taken and the placing thereof on her land, which was refused, and the pipe was covered up during the progress of such construction and widening; that drainage waters now run into her runway cellar, house, and chicken houses; that the pipe which was covered up would have taken care of all that water.
Counsel for plaintiff in error contends that instructions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 should not have been submitted to the jury, over objection, for the reasons that each and all of said instructions permitted the jury to consider and include in their verdict, damages to the residue of Noble's land not taken in this proceeding, when there was no such claim made by Noble, and when there was no evidence whatever of any damages to the residue resulting from the taking of said strip of land. Further, it is contended that the jury, in allowing $100.00 in their verdict for damages to the residue of Noble's land not taken, wholly disregarded the testimony at the trial, and, from their view of the premises, found evidence upon which such verdict was solely based.
The court's instruction No. 1 read in part: Such an instruction was not only proper according to the circumstances in this case but was mandatory under chapter 61, section 18, vol. 3, '35 C.S.A., and the failure to include these things in the verdict would have been fatal. Norris v. City of Pueblo, 12 Colo.App. 290, 55 P. 747.
The court's instruction No. 2 was proper in that the burden rested upon the respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Troiano v. Colorado Dept. of Highways
...proof with regard to establishing the existence of damages and the amount of compensation therefor. Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Noble, 117 Colo. 77, 184 P.2d 142. II. CHANGE IN GRADE OF STREET AND RIGHT OF The evidence on this point showed that the grade on 46th Ave......
-
Sinclair Transp. Co. v. Sandberg, No. 08CA1249.
...rests on the landowner to show by a preponderance of the evidence the property's present actual cash value. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Noble, 117 Colo. 77, 79-80, 184 P.2d 142, 143 (1947). A. Compensation Determined by Landowners argue that they were denied their constitutional right to have just co......
-
Colorado & Utah Coal Co. v. Rorex
...willing to pay and the latter is willing to take. See Wassenich v. Denver, 67 Colo. 456, 186 P. 533; Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Noble, 117 Colo. 77, 184 P.2d 142. Opinion evidence regarding market value should be based upon the same elements as would induce willing......
-
Fowler Trust v. City of Boulder
...considerations. See Williams, 147 Colo. at 199, 363 P.2d at 173. The Trust had the burden of proof.8 See Board of Comm'rs v.. Noble, 117 Colo. 77, 79-80, 184 P.2d 142, 143 (1947). A willing lessee in a fair bargaining situation would look at the actual uses that could be made of the propert......
-
Appendix B EMINENT DOMAIN JURY INSTRUCTIONS
...and allocation of the burden of proof between the parties on the various issues is derived from Board of County Commissioners v. Noble, 117 Colo. 77, 184 P.2d 142 (1947). See also Jagow v. E-470 Pub. Highway Auth., 49 P.3d 1151 (Colo. 2002). 3. For authorities relating to the definition of ......
-
Chapter 35 - § 35.2 • EMINENT DOMAIN UNDER STATE LAW
...958 P.2d 495 (Colo. App. 1997); Palizzi v. City of Brighton, 228 P.3d 957 (Colo. 2010).[133] Bd. of Comm'rs of Jefferson County v. Noble, 184 P.2d 142 (Colo. 1974); Dep't of Health v. Hecla Mining Co., 781 P.2d 122 (Colo. App. 1989). [134] Dep't of Highways v. Schulhoff, 445 P.2d 402 (Colo.......
-
Chapter 14 - § 14.2 • OVERVIEW OF COLORADO LAW RELATING TO NEW HOME SALES AND CONSTRUCTION
...1970) (court may take judicial notice of tax assessments).[344] Antolovich, 183 P.3d at 595-96.[345] See Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Noble, 184 P.2d 142, 143 (Colo. 1947) (property's market value must be based on its "present condition."); Dep't of Health v. Hecla Mining Co., 781 P.2d 122, 126 (......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.2 • STATUTES, ORDINANCES, AND REGULATIONS
...1970) (court may take judicial notice of tax assessments).[344] Antolovich, 183 P.3d at 595-96.[345] See Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Noble, 184 P.2d 142, 143 (Colo. 1947) (property's market value must be based on its "present condition."); Dep't of Health v. Hecla Mining Co., 781 P.2d 122, 126 (......