City of St. Louis v. Worthington

Decision Date08 September 1932
Citation52 S.W.2d 1003,331 Mo. 182
PartiesCity of St. Louis, Appellant, v. Emily Worthington, Executrix of the Estate of James A. Worthington
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Hon. Julius R Nolte, Judge.

Affirmed.

Julius T. Muench, G. Wm. Senn and Harry H Richards for appellant.

(1) It is prejudicial error in a jury trial in condemnation to admit evidence which advised the jury of the amount awarded by the commissioners in the case and the fact of service as commissioners, and it is as improper for this to be done indirectly as directly. St. Louis v. Schopp, 325 Mo 480; St. Louis v. Smith, 325 Mo. 471; Cape Girardeau v. Hunze, 314 Mo. 438; School District v. Phoenix, 297 Mo. 332; Railroad v. Second Street Imp. Co., 256 Mo. 386; Cape Girardeau etc. v. Blechle, 234 Mo. 471; Railroad v. Pfau, 212 Mo. 398; Railway v. Roberts, 187 Mo. 309; Nichols on Eminent Domain (2 Ed.) sec. 431, p. 1136. (2) Under the circumstances of this case, it was error not to permit the jury to visit the locus in quo, and to reprimand counsel before the jury for making an offer to take the jury, under the supervision of the court, to see the same. Kansas City v. Butterfield, 89 Mo. 646; Kansas City v. Hill, 80 Mo. 523; Kansas City v. Street, 36 Mo.App. 666; Washburn v. Railway Co., 59 Wis. 364; Springfield v. Dolby, 139 Ill. 34; Forbes v. United States, 268 F. 273; Springer v. Chicago, 135 Ill. 552, 12 L. R. A. 609; Jones' Commentaries on Evidence, sec. 1406; Lewis on Eminent Domain, p. 1107; Nichols on Eminent Domain, p. 1142; Reg v. Sheldon, 32 L. T. (N. S.) 27; Southwich v. Gouch, 263 S.W. 490; Cronkheit v. Dickerson, 51 Mich. 177; Wheeler v. Wallace, 53 Mich. 355; Kleinert v. Federal Brewing Co., 95 N.Y.S. 407; 38 Cyc. 1323.

Lubke & Lubke for respondent.

(1) The commissioners were competent witnesses. St. Louis v. Abeln, 170 Mo. 326; Cape Girardeau v. Hunze, 314 Mo. 438. (2) The mere fact that a witness testifies that he was appointed a commissioner is not reversible error where the record fails to show the contents of the commissioners' report or the amounts assessed by the commissioners as damages. Cape Girardeau v. Hunze, 314 Mo. 438. (3) No objection having been made by plaintiff to the testimony of the witness Dr. S. J. Will that he was one of the commissioners, plaintiff cannot now complain that it was error to permit him to so testify. (4) A view by the jury of the premises in question is not a matter of right, but rests in the discretion of the court, and it is not error to refuse it. Ellis v. Railroad Co., 131 Mo.App. 395; State v. Lewis, 14 Mo.App. 191; Gunn v. Hemphill Lumber Co., 218 S.W. 978; Young v. Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co., 269 Mo. 20; Nery v. Willi, 293 S.W. 500; Clayton v. Railroad Co., 67 Iowa 238; King v. Railroad Co., 34 Iowa 458; Beck v. Staats, 80 Neb. 490; Kelpsch v. Donald, 4 Wash. 436; Leidlein v. Meyer, 95 Mich. 586; Pick v. Rubicon Hydraulic Co., 27 Wis. 433; Andrews v. Youmans, 82 Wis. 81; Note, 42 L. R. A. 370. (5) The court, in denying plaintiff's request to view the premises, did not reprimand plaintiff's counsel, and plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby. State v. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475; State v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44; State v. Musick, 101 Mo. 260.

Ferguson, C. Sturgis and Hyde, CC., concur.

OPINION
FERGUSON

This is a condemnation proceeding instituted in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County by the city of St. Louis against James A. Worthington, now deceased, for the purpose of acquiring title to a tract of land containing 105.75 acres, owned by Worthington and situate in St. Louis County. It was necessary for the city to acquire this property in carrying out its plans for the extension of Koch Hospital, a public hospital owned and maintained by the city. The entire tract was taken and as Worthington owned no adjoining land the value of the land taken constituted the measure of the damages to be assessed. The commissioners appointed by the court (Sec. 1342, R. S. 1929) "to assess the damages" which the owner would "sustain by reason of such appropriation" made and filed their report in which they appraised the value of the land, without improvements, at $ 300 per acre, or a total of $ 31,725, and appraised the value of the improvements thereon separately at $ 13,500, making a total award of $ 45,225. Defendant filed exceptions to the report of the commissioners and demanded a trial by jury, which was granted. The jury returned a verdict awarding damages in the sum of $ 85,000. We are informed by the statement, found in the briefs, giving the history of this case that "after hearing plaintiff's motion for a new trial the trial court entered an order that unless defendant would remit $ 20,000 of the verdict a new trial would be granted. The defendant declining" to make the remittitur a new trial was ordered on the ground "that the verdict was excessive and against the weight of the evidence as to amount" and the defendant appealed. This court affirmed the order granting a new trial and remanded the cause. [City of St. Louis v. Worthington (Mo.), 19 S.W.2d 1066.] Upon the retrial of the cause the verdict of the jury assessed damages in the sum of $ 68,000 and from the judgment entered thereon plaintiff brings this appeal.

Appellant makes two assignments of error: (1) that the trial court permitted defendant to show that two of plaintiff's witnesses had served as commissioners and admitted evidence upon the cross-examination of these two witnesses "which advised the jury of the amount awarded by the commissioners;" (2) the refusal of plaintiff's request that the jury, under supervision of the court, be permitted to visit and view the land. The commissioners' report, signed by all the commissioners, had assessed the value of the land, without improvements, at $ 300 per acre. The appellant, City of St. Louis, used two of the commissioners, Dr. S. J. Will and Fred L. Kerth, as witnesses and its first assignment of error relates to the cross-examination of these two witnesses.

On direct examination Dr. S. J. Will testified that he had lived in the vicinity of the land for fifty years, had "owned property" and "watched the trend of values" in that section, was "familiar with the tract" of land taken and valued it "at $ 210 an acre as of April 2, 1923," the date of the appropriation by plaintiff.

"Cross-examination:

"Q. Did you always have the same idea, that that was worth $ 210 an acre? A. Well, yes.

"Q. You did? A. Yes.

"Q. Dr. Will, you were appointed by this court as one of the commissioners -- A. Yes, sir.

"Q. -- to assess the value of this property, were you not? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you qualified and functioned as such? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you signed a report that was filed in this court didn't you? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And did you at that time fix the value --

"The Court: Wait a minute.

"Mr. Richards (counsel for plaintiff): I object to going into that.

"The Court: You are not going to say that amount, are you?

"Mr. McAtee (counsel for defendant): Sir?

"The Court: You are not going to ask with reference to that amount?

"Mr. McAtee: Certainly I have a right to impeach the witness, in order to test his memory and credibility.

"The Court (addressing counsel for plaintiff): Are you going to object to it?

"Mr. Richards: I am going to object to it. I am putting Doctor Will on the stand as an expert and not as a commissioner in this case because of his long life down there in this section of the county.

"Mr. McAtee: Yes, your Honor, and I have a right to cross-examine him as an expert.

"The Court: Do you want to show the report of the Commissioners?

"Mr. McAtee: Do I want to show it? No.

"The Court: I mean, do you want to refer to the amount?

"Mr. McAtee: I want to refer to the amount that he gave as his idea of the property.

"Mr. Richards: I object to that, if your Honor please.

"Mr. McAtee: I think it is perfectly proper.

"The Court: The court will sustain the objection.

"Mr. McAtee: Q. Now, doctor, I will ask you again: did you ever have any other idea as to the value of this land? A. Yes, I did.

"Q. You did; and when was that? A. That was in April, about '23.

"Q. April, 1923; what, in your opinion, was the value of the land at that time -- A. Yes.

"Q. -- what was your opinion at that time? A. It was at that time, yes.

"Q. Yes? A. About 210 an acre.

"Q. Did you ever have an idea at that time it was worth $ 300 an acre? A. Well, I don't think so.

"Q. How? A. I don't think so.

"Q. You didn't at that time believe the property was worth $ 300 an acre? A. No, sir. That was the agreement that --

"The Court: Wait a minute.

"Mr. Richards: I object to that testimony, your Honor.

"The Court: The objection is sustained.

"Mr. McAtee: Q. Doctor, I want to show you here a paper that I will refer to as the Report of Commissioners, and ask you if that is your signature there (hands paper to witness, which he examines)? A. Yes.

"Q. I will ask you to refer to that for the purpose of refreshing you memory, and then I will repeat the question, if at that time you had any other idea of the value of this land than what you are now testifying to?

"Mr. Richards: If your Honor, please, may I just offer one suggestion? His idea of the value at that time -- the doctor has already testified to his idea of the value --

"Mr. McAtee: I am cross-examining him.

" Mr. Richards: -- on direct examination, and also on cross-examination, he has testified to his idea of the value.

"Mr. McAtee: I am cross-examining him on that, your Honor. I am not bound by his answer. I am cross-examining him as I understand the law --

"The Court: Well, as the Court understands the law, this trial jury has absolutely no right to know what the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Ruehling v. Pickwick-Greyhound Lines
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1935
    ... ...          Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Fred J ... Hoffmeister, Judge ...           ... Reversed and ... credibility. State v. Allen, 183 S.W. 329, 267 Mo ... 49; St. Louis v. Worthington, 52 S.W.2d 1003, 331 Mo. 182 ...          Gallant & Hannigan and Robert L. Aronson for ... ...
  • Dempsey v. Horton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1935
    ... ... Rehearing Overruled July 11, 1935 ...          Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Charles W ... Rutledge , Judge ...           ... Reversed and ... State v. Steele, 226 Mo. 583, 602, 126 S.W. 406, ... 412(7); St. Louis v. Worthington, 331 Mo. 182, ... 193(2), 52 S.W.2d 1003, 1009(3).] The inquiries in the ... instant case sought ... ...
  • State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel. Chambers v. Jones
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1945
    ... ...           Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Robert L ... Aronson , Judge ...           ... Affirmed ... Pennsylvania Fire Ins ... Co., 269 Mo. 1, 187 S.W. 856; St. Louis v ... Worthington, 331 Mo. 182, 52 S.W.2d 1003 (13) The ... reopening of the case on its own motion for further ... ...
  • Hammond v. Schuermann Building & Realty Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1944
    ... ...           Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William B ... Flynn, Judge ...           ... Remanded (with ... 75; Shartzer v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry ... Co., 250 S.W. 950; St. Louis v. Worthington, 52 ... S.W.2d 1003; Brule v. Mayflower Apartments Co., 113 ... S.W.2d 1058; Courter v. George W ... ...
  • 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