Garvin v. State Road Dept.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. E-19,E-19 |
| Citation | 149 So.2d 869 |
| Parties | Charles GARVIN and Martha Garvin, husband and wife, Appellants, v. STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT, An Agency of the State of Florida, and Clay County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
T.J.Jennings, Jr., and James T. Norton, Greencove Springs, for appellants.
Robert D. Canada, Tallahassee, for appellees.
Two defendants in a condemnation proceeding have appealed from a final judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Clay County based upon a jury verdict.
The main question before us on this appeal is whether the jury in reaching that verdict failed to include compensation for the taking of or damages to, three gasoline tanks and two pumps owned by the said defendants.
At the trial the road department's sole witness was its appraiser who testified that the total value of the said defendants' property taken was $30,060, including the sum of $1700 for miscellaneous items he may have overlooked, like boards and field wire. He further testified that in reaching the figure of $30,060 he included nothing for the gasoline tanks and pumps on the defendants' property because he had been told that they belonged to an oil company, not to the defendants.
On the other hand, the defendant Charles Garvin testified that he owned three 3,000-gallon tanks installed in the property as well as two electric gasoline pumps. He further testified that the value of the three tanks was $900 before installation and that the cost of installation was $900; that the pumps were worth $800 installed; that the total value of his property taken was around $60,000. Garvin's testimony that he owned the said tanks and pumps was uncontradicted by any competent evidence. The said appraiser, however, testified that he thought the value of the tanks was $400 each and the value of the pumps was $100 to $150 apiece. His total value of $30,060 for the entire property taken was the lowest testified to at the trial.
At the end of the trial, which appears to have been conducted fairly as to all parties and interests, the jury brought in a verdict of $30,060, the precise amount the condemnor's appraiser had testified was the total value of the defendants' property taken in the proceeding, without including anything for the said tanks and pumps.
It can be argued, of course, and the appellee so argues on this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Behm v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp.
...But what is the law? Appellants cite Sallas v. State Road Department, 220 So.2d 378 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1969); Garvin v. State Road Department, 149 So.2d 869 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1963) and Meyers v. City of Daytona Beach, 158 Fla. 859, 30 So.2d 354 (1947), in support of their appeal. The Sallas court ......
-
Fleissner v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp.
...County v. Renedo, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 313. See also, Meyers v. Daytona Beach, 1947, 158 Fla. 859, 30 So.2d 354; Garvin v. State Road Dept., Fla.App.1st 1963, 149 So.2d 869.2 1893, 32 Fla. 28, 13 So. 444.3 1887, 23 Fla. 463, 2 So. ...
-
State Road Dept. v. Winters
...to the appellate court, that there appears to be some 'substantial competent evidence' supporting the verdict.' In Garvin v. State Road Department, 149 So.2d 869 (1963), this court was confronted with a factual situation fairly analogous to that in the case at bar. In the Garvin case the fi......
-
Sallas v. State Road Dept.
...(Fla.App.1967), 188 So.2d 38.2 Meyers v. City of Daytona Beach (1947), 158 Fla. 859, 30 So.2d 354, 355.3 Garvin v. State Road Department (Fla.App.1963), 149 So.2d 869, 871.4 F.S. § 73.101, F.S.A.5 State Road Department v. Hartsfield (Fla.App.1968), 216 So.2d 61.6 State Road Department v. Ha......