Cutler v. State
| Decision Date | 15 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | 44115. |
| Citation | 278 N.W. 327,224 Iowa 686 |
| Parties | CUTLER et al. v. STATE et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Webster County; O. J. Henderson, Judge.
Plaintiffs appealed to the district court from an award of damages in a condemnation proceeding. The jury returned a verdict of $4,000 damages. The Highway Commission has appealed. Opinion states the facts.
Affirmed.
John H. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., T. J. Mahoney, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen F. J. Lund, of Webster City, and M. J. Mitchell, of Fort Dodge, for appellants.
Burnstedt & Hemmingway, of Webster City, for appellees.
Harry O. Cutler, Verne Cutler, and Elma Webb are the joint owners of the southwest quarter and the south half of the southeast quarter of section 33, and also of 26 acres in the south half of the southwest quarter of section 34, all in township 89 range 26, west of the 5th P. M. Harry O. Cutler and Verne Cutler also own an undivided one-third of the north half of the southeast quarter of section 33, and J. F. Webb owns an undivided one-ninth interest and Elma Webb an undivided two-ninths interest in the north half of the southeast quarter of section 33, township 89, range 26.
Primary highway No. 20 runs in an easterly and westerly direction along the south line of sections 33 and 34. Primary highway No. 60 runs north from No. 20, forming a " T" intersection at the south edge of the land in controversy. Both highways No. 20 and No. 60 had been there for years. The occasion for the present condemnation is that No. 60 was paved and the intersection was converted from a " T" into a " Y" to facilitate and safeguard traffic. The strips taken were to widen the highway and afford room for the arms of the " Y" . The amount of acreage taken is not large. It does not divide the farm and is along the edge of same. Unfortunately, however, located upon that part of the land the Highway Commission desired is an eight-room house, also what is designated as a fuel house or shed, a cistern, and some seventeen shade trees. The property was condemned and the sheriff's jury fixed the amount of damage at $2,100. The owners were dissatisfied with this amount and appealed to the district court, claiming that they were entitled to $10,000. There was a trial to a jury, which returned a verdict for $4,000. The Highway Commission was dissatisfied with this amount and has appealed.
It is claimed that the court erred in giving instruction No. 10. The argument is advanced that it is practically the same instruction which this court disapproved in the case of Hoeft v. State of Iowa, 221 Iowa 694, 266 N.W. 571, 575, 104 A.L.R. 1008. An examination, however, of the instruction given in the case at bar, and the instruction given in the Hoeft Case, shows clearly that there is a marked distinction. In the Hoeft case the jury was given the instruction: " You have the right and should take into consideration your own knowledge of the values of the property." Whereas in the case at bar the court said: " You have a right to weigh and judge the soundness of opinions thus expressed by your own judgment in the light of your own experience and observation with respect to such matters." Thus, in the Hoeft Case the jury was directed to take into consideration its own knowledge of the value of the property, whereas in the case at bar the jury was allowed to call to its aid its own knowledge, learning, and experience in estimating the weight to be given to the testimony of an expert as to value. Certainly, the jury has a right to hear the testimony of an expert in the light of its reasonableness, credibility, and conformity with proved facts, and in so doing it may use ordinary knowledge. The jury in the case at bar inspected the premises, and the court's instructions simply directed the jury to hear the testimony of the experts in the light of its own experience.
Appellants complain bitterly because the court refused to give certain requested instructions, one of which is as follows: We can see no reason for the giving of this instruction. There was no claim made in the petition, or by any evidence offered, that the highway would be used by the State for unlawful purposes.
In the case of Maxwell v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 265 N.W. 899, this court said at page 906: " The cases cited by the appellants to the effect that all of the issues made in the case must be submitted to the jury and that the jury must be limited in awarding damages to the damages shown in the evidence, simply refers to a general rule applicable to tort cases and perhaps some others, but such rule is not applicable in condemnation cases, because in the latter cases there is only the one issue, as we have mentioned, to be submitted to and determined by the jury."
It is claimed that the court erred in giving instruction No. 8. There was involved in the case at bar 240 acres of land owned by appellees, and in addition to that there was an 80-acre tract, abutting the 240-acre farm, which the evidence showed was owned by appellants together with one Webb; that these two farms were operated together and had been for a period of more than ten years; that because of their ownership and control of the abutting 80-acre tract, taken in connection with the improvements adjacent thereto, it permitted the appellees the possibility of dividing their land into two separate farms for operating and sale purposes. We quote the material part of the instruction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial