Crouch v. State
| Decision Date | 23 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 14979,14979 |
| Citation | 413 S.W.2d 141 |
| Parties | R. E. CROUCH, a Widow, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. . Houston |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Oldham & Lorance, Houston, for appellant, Beatty Oldham, Houston, of counsel.
Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Hawthorne Phillips, T. B. Wright, Carroll R. Graham, Robert D. McGee, Albert L. Derden, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, for appellee.
Appellee, The State of Texas, brought this suit to condemn 17.768 acres of land out of the center of a rectangular tract containing 106.302 acres of land in the Sealy Subdivision, San Felipe de Austin Town Tract 5 League Grant, Abstract 5, in Austin County, Texas, located southwest of the town of Sealy. The jury, in answer to special issues, awarded the sum of $6,216.80 for the land taken consisting of 17.768 acres, and found that the cash market value of the remaining land before and after the taking was respectively $30,986.90 and $29,936.90, thus resulting in a loss of $1,050.00 in the value of the remaining land. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant her a new trial because the verdict of the jury was so contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust and unfair, and also that the court erred in excluding evidence of certain sales offered by appellant and in admitting evidence of certain sales offered by appellee, as being comparable to the land condemned.
The evidence shows that the west boundary of appellant's 106.302 acres was a county road some 40 feet in width. The tract had no frontage upon any other road or highway. In connection with the construction of Interstate Highway No. 10, which runs in approximately an easterly and westerly direction across appellant's tract of land, appellee constructed an elevated bridge or overpass some 17 or 18 feet above the ground level on said county road over Highway 10 with the necessary elevated grade approaches along and other said road to such bridge, thus cutting off appellant's access to such road with the exception of some 385 feet on the county road remaining at the ground level at the northwest corner of appellant's land and a similar 385 feet at the ground level at the southwest corner of appellant's tract. The bridge and its approaches cut off approximately 700 feet of the frontage appellant's land formerly had on the county road.
Interstate Highway 10 is a controlled access highway. There are no frontage or service roads constructed or contemplated on either side of Interstate 10 across appellant's land. Such highway, therefore, cuts appellant's tract of land into two separate tracts, the northern tract consisting of some 36.834 acres and the southern tract of some 50.7 acres. There is no way in which appellant can get from one of such tracts to the other without going out on the county road and traveling along and over the approaches and bridge thereon. In order to get onto Interstate 10 appellant would have to go from one or the other of the remaining tracts to the county road and on it to Highway 90 or some other road. The distance from appellant's remaining tracts to the nearest interchange where she could go on or leave Interstate 10 is approximately a mile.
We have read the entire statement of facts with the exception of the exhibits which have not been brought up to this Court, and have concluded that we cannot say that the jury's answers to the special issues submitted are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust. The jury evidently believed appellee's witnesses and felt that the opinions expressed by them with respect to market values were more reliable than the opinions of appellant herself and of her witness, Mr. Marik .
Appellant testified that she was convinced that her land was worth no less than $700.00 per acre. She also testified that her land overlooked the City of Sealy and was very desirable for residential use, which was coming her way; that she 'would certainly not put a value of less than $700.00 an acre in five, three, four, five, six, whatever a person wanted in each tract.' She also testified she had no immediate plans for a subdivision of the property but was waiting to see what the Highway was going to do; that she leased it for grazing rather than have it vacant and that she was hoping for a better price for it in the future; and that the land was bought with the intention of the development of the city in the future.
Appellant's witness, Charles Marik, a landowner in Austin County, and a buyer of oil and gas leases and dealer in real estate and ranches, and a licensed real estate broker, testified that he would put a value of $600.00 an acre on appellant's entire acreage; that in his opinion the value of the remaining tract of 50.7 acres south of Highway 10 would be worth only $400.00 an acre after the taking, and the 36.834 acre tract north of the highway would be worth only $500.00 an acre after the taking. He also testified that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tucson v. LaForge
...Highway Commission v. Newton, Wyo., 395 P.2d 606 (1964); Routh v. State Highway Commission, Wyo., 402 P.2d 706 (1965); Crouch v. State, 413 S.W.2d 141 (Tex.Civ.App.1967); Department of Public Works and Buildings v. Lankford, 65 Ill.App.2d 133, 212 N.E.2d 14 (1965). Where, as here, the other......
-
State ex rel. City of Wichita Falls v. Rust
...great discretion in making this determination. Ford v. State, 432 S.W.2d 720 (Amarillo Tex.Civ.App., 1968, no writ hist.) and Crouch v. State, 413 S.W.2d 141 (Houston Tex.Civ.App., 1967, no writ The trial court's ruling in such cases will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an ......
-
Bridges v. Trinity River Authority
...similar and therefore admissible will not be reviewed except to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion. Crouch v. State,413 S.W.2d 141 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston 1967, no writ history); Trinity River Authority v. Hutchings, 437 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1969, no writ his......
-
City of Abilene v. Blackburn
...309 S.W.2d 903, (Ct.Civ.App., 1958, dism. WOJ); State v. Childress, 331 S.W.2d 230, (Ct.Civ.App., 1959, ref. n.r.e.); Crouch v. State, 413 S.W.2d 141, (Ct.Civ.App., 1967); State v. Hamman, 377 S.W.2d 727, (Ct.Civ.App., 1964, no writ history); Holcombe v. City of Houston, 351 S.W.2d 69 (Ct.C......