Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. State Highway Commission

• Citation: 150 Kan. 187,92 P.2d 72
• Decision Date: 08 July 1939
• Docket Number: 34248.
• Parties: FEDERAL LAND BANK OF WICHITA v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

92 P.2d 72

150 Kan. 187

FEDERAL LAND BANK OF WICHITA v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 34248.

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 8, 1939

Syllabus by the Court.

Whenever an appeal is taken under statute to the district court by a condemnor, landowner, or lienholder from an appraisement made in a proceeding in eminent domain, the effect is to bring to the district court in its entirety the question of the sufficiency of the award, and the trial of that issue in the district court is conclusive on all parties, subject only to their right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Gen.St.Supp 1937, 26-102; Gen.St.1935, 26-101.

On an appeal to the district court from an appraisement made in a proceeding in eminent domain, the measure of damages to be applied is the reasonable market value of the lands taken plus the difference in value of the remaining lands immediately before and immediately after the condemnation. Gen.St.Supp.1937, 26-102; Gen.St.1935, 26-101.

1. Whenever, under Laws 1937, ch. 226, § 1 (G.S.1937 Supp 26-102), an appeal is taken to the district court, either by the petitioner or by the landowner or by a lienholder from an appraisement made in proceedings in eminent domain had under G.S.1935, 26-101, the effect is to bring to the district court in its entirety the question of the sufficiency of the award, and the trial of that issue in the district court is conclusive on all of the parties, subject only to their right of appeal to the supreme court.

2. On the trial of such appeal to the district court, the measure of damages to be applied is the reasonable market value of the lands taken plus the difference in value of the remaining lands immediately before and immediately after the condemnation.

Appeal from District Court, Ellsworth County; Roy A. Smith, Judge.

Condemnation proceeding by the State Highway Commission of the state of Kansas to have certain lands condemned for highway purposes against the landowner and the Federal Land Bank of Wichita, which held a mortgage lien on the realty in question. From an award of the appraisers, the Federal Land Bank of Wichita appealed to the district court. From a judgment in favor of the Federal Land Bank of Wichita, the State Highway Commission of the state of Kansas appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Lester M. Goodell, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Glenn Logan and C. C. Casey, both of Topeka, Woodrow B. Morris, of Oxford, Joseph W. Menzie, of Manhattan, and Paul L. Aylward, of Ellsworth, for appellant.

Samuel E. Bartlett and Brewster Bartlett, both of Ellsworth, and W. E. Pepperell, Conrad L. Ball, J. P. Flinn, Edw. H. Jamison, and J. R. Hannah, all of Wichita, for appellee.

THIELE Justice.

The question here presented is the measure of damages to be applied when a lienholder appeals from an award in condemnation proceedings under G.S.1935, ch. 26, art. 1, as amended by Laws 1937, ch. 226, § 1 (G.S.1937 Supp. 26-102). Two appeals were taken to this court by the state highway commission from awards made in the district court. For our purposes the facts in each are alike and will be stated in the singular.

On March 7, 1938, the state highway commission initiated the proceedings by filing its petition to have certain lands condemned for highway purposes. Notice was given the landowner as well as the Federal Land Bank, hereafter referred to as the bank or the lienholder, and which held a mortgage lien on the tract involved.

On March 16, 1938, the bank filed an application alleging it held unsatisfied mortgage liens on the lands sought to be condemned, and that by virtue thereof it had a first and prior lien in equity upon any award for damages granted to its mortgagors, and asking that an order be made that the award be paid to it.

On March 21, 1938, the appraisers made their report, the details of which we need not notice. Within time, the bank as a lienholder appealed from the award made. Neither the landowner nor the state highway commission filed any notice of appeal from the appraisement made.

On October 5, 1938, the state highway commission filed its motion for an order determining questions of law propounded. The first question was whether the landowners were parties to the appeal; the second, if they were not parties, what was the measure of damages to which the bank was entitled. Three other questions were propounded, but by reason of our conclusions they need not be noticed.

The trial court ruled that the landowner was not a party to the appeal and that the measure of damages would be the reasonable market value of the land taken and the difference in the value of the remaining tract immediately before and immediately after the condemnation.

Later, a trial was had on the question of damages in which the trial court applied the measure above stated, and as a result of which the award made by the jury exceeded the appraisement as originally made. Various post trial motions were denied and the highway commission appeals.

In disposing of the appeals, it is to be noted there is now before us no question as to division of the award as between the landowner and the lienholder, and that question, which might possibly arise, will not be further mentioned except in an incidental way.

Many provisions of our statutes with reference to the exercise of the right of eminent domain were considered and revised by the commissioners appointed under Laws...