Goodwine v. Evans

• Decision Date: 20 April 1893
• Citation: 134 Ind. 262,33 N.E. 1031
• Parties: GOODWINE v. EVANS et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

134 Ind. 262

33 N.E. 1031

GOODWINE

v.EVANS et al.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 20, 1893.

Appeal from circuit court, Warren county; J. M. Rabb, Judge.

Petition by John T. Evans and others for the establishment of a highway. Remonstrances were filed by James Goodwine, who appeals from a judgment rendered against him. Affirmed.

W. L. Rabourn and W. B. Durbarrow, for appellant. Hansley & Stansbury, for appellees.

COFFEY, C. J.

This was a petition to the board of commissioners of Warren county to lay out and establish the public highway therein described. The appellant filed a remonstrance, claiming damages occasioned by the establishment of such highway over his land. Reviewers were appointed, who reported damages in his favor, but, being dissatisfied with the amount of the assessment, he appealed to the Warren circuit court. Upon a trial of the cause by a jury in that court a verdict was returned against him. Over a motion for a new trial the court rendered judgment on the verdict. The only error properly assigned in this court calls in question the propriety of the ruling of the circuit court in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial. We will consider the alleged errors of the circuit court in the order in which they are presented by the appellant.

1. It is claimed by the appellant that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence in the cause. The sole question for trial in the circuit court related to the amount of damages, if any, which the appellant would sustain by reason of the establishment and opening of the road described in the petition. Upon this question the evidence is conflicting. There is much evidence in the record tending to show that the benefits which the appellant will receive by the establishment of the highway will equal his damages. While, under the constitution, no one's land can be taken for the establishment of a highway without compensation, such compensation need not be made in money. Benefits accruing to the land from the establishment of the highway may constitute full compensation within the meaning of the constitution. In estimating the damages which a landowner will sustain by reason of the establishment of a highway over his land the benefits which he will receive must also be considered. Rassier v. Grimmer, 130 Ind. 219, 28 N. E. Rep. 866, and 29 N. E. Rep. 918; Hire v. Kniseley, 130 Ind. 295, 29 N. E. Rep. 1132. We cannot reverse the judgment on the weight of the evidence.

2. It is contended that the court erred in admitting incompetent evidence on behalf of the appellees and in excluding proper evidence offered by the appellant. The evidence in the cause tends to prove that the appellant owns a farm consisting of 760 acres. The highway in question runs east and west through the farm, cutting off on the north end 240 acres. The appellees, over the objection of the appellant, were permitted to prove the market value of the appellant's entire farm without the highway in question and such value with the highway, without first stating the basis upon which the witnesses fixed such values. This was in accord with the practice as approved by this court. Hire v. Kniseley, supra. It was competent for the appellant to ascertain by cross-examination the basis upon which the witnesses fixed the values stated by them. As the appellant's land was in one body, constituting but a single farm, there was no error in permitting the appellees to...