Campbell v. Iowa State Highway Commission

• Decision Date: 29 September 1936
• Docket Number: 43331.
• Citation: 269 N.W. 20,222 Iowa 544
• Parties: CAMPBELL et al. v. IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

269 N.W. 20

222 Iowa 544

CAMPBELL et al. v. IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION et al.

No. 43331.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

September 29, 1936

Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; Frank Bechly, Judge.

Appeal from verdict of jury in condemnation case; verdict held to be excessive.

Reversed.

C. E Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., and D. Myron Tripp and M. R Hammer, Jr., both of Newton, for appellants.

Korf & Korf and Cross & Hamill, all of Newton, for appellees.

PARSONS, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the finding of a jury appointed in a state highway condemnation case to assess the damages to a tract of land in Jasper county, the entire tract containing 310 acres and being all of the west half of section 18, township 81 north, range 21 west, except the north 10 acres thereof. The amount of land taken for the right of way is 15.71 acres. The south line of this highway No. 88 starts about 8 rods north of the southwest corner of the track, and leaves the tract about 1 rod north of the northeast corner of the south quarter, thus leaving about 90 acres of the tract south and east of the south side of the highway, and the balance of the tract north and west of the north line of the highway. The land is rolling and rough, and no part has been cultivated for about 20 years, and perhaps at the best, not over 60 acres could be cultivated profitably. It is entirely devoted to pasturage, and is all covered with blue grass except here and there small bare patches. It has on it quite a number of scrub oak trees; it has draws through it, many and deep, and it has a creek running through it, Mud creek, which crosses the tract diagonally, entering near the northwest corner and leaving the tract at the southeast corner.

It appears in the evidence that this tract was purchased by the owner in September, 1933, for $6,500, on time, and the record discloses that condemnation proceedings were instituted June 1, 1934, and the condemnation jury provided by the statutes fixed the damages June 16, 1934, the amount not then being shown. An appeal was taken to the district court by the highway commission, and after trial thereof damages were allowed by the jury amounting to $4,680. Exceptions to instructions and a motion for new trial were overruled, and an appeal taken by the highway commission to this court.

The motion for new trial raises the question as to whether or not the verdict was excessive and the result of passion and prejudice. The district court overruled the motion to set aside the verdict, and the highway commission has appealed.

The result of the verdict, if allowed to stand, shows that the plaintiff made quite a profit on this land deal. He purchased for $6,500 the entire tract of 310 acres, and that on time. The condemnation took place nine months thereafter, and then appeal was taken to the district court and the jury returned a verdict of $4,680, so the balance of the land, 294 acres and a fraction, stands the purchaser the difference between $4,680 and $6,500 paid nine months before the condemnation, or $1,820. The purchase price was $20.97 per acre. The owner, after the right of way was taken out, has 294 and a fraction acres left, so he has sold to the state 15.71 acres at $291 per acre, and the balance now stands him $6 per acre. At this rate, if the state had taken a few acres more it would have been compelled to pay the full purchase price of the land, and some over, and the owner would have over 280 acres for nothing.

Section 18 of article 1, which is in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the state, is as follows: " Eminent domain. Sec. 18. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first being made, or secured to be made to the owner thereof, as soon as the damages shall be assessed by a jury, who shall not take into consideration any advantages that may result to said owner on account of the improvement for which it is taken." It may be, and perhaps has often been contended, that courts have no control over verdicts in cases arising under the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Such contention is erroneous. Wherever the word " jury" is used it means a jury as known at common law, a jury of a court, not a so-called condemnation jury or anything of that sort, but a jury such as is used at the trial of ordinary lawsuits. This being true, it logically follows that courts have the same control over...