Hempstead County v. Huddleston

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MCHANEY, J.
• Citation: Hempstead County v. Huddleston, 31 S.W.2d 300, 182 Ark. 276 (Ark. 1930)
• Decision Date: 29 September 1930
• Docket Number: 137
• Parties: HEMPSTEAD COUNTY v. HUDDLESTON

31 S.W.2d 300

182 Ark. 276

HEMPSTEAD COUNTY v. HUDDLESTON

No. 137

Supreme Court of Arkansas

September 29, 1930

Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; W. H. Arnold, Special Judge reversed.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

L. F Monroe, Wm. S. Atkins and U. A. Gentry, for appellant.

O. A Graves, for appellee.

OPINION

MCHANEY, J.

On September 18, 1929, appellee filed his claim in the county court of Hempstead County for damages to land, crops, timber and fences by reason of the relocation and construction as relocated of Highway No. 27 through his lands, the total damage claimed being $ 625. The county court disallowed the claim, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court where, on a trial de novo, there was a verdict and judgment for $ 400 in his favor.

Two grounds are now urged by appellant for reversal of the case. The first is that the court erred in refusing to give instruction No. 1 requested by it. This instruction is exactly the same as requested instruction No. 4 in case No. 1703, Hempstead County v. Gilbert, post p. 280, in which an opinion is this day filed, holding that appellant's contention in this regard is not well taken. This case on this point is therefore ruled by that.

The second ground for reversal is that the court erred in giving instruction No. A on its own motion, which is as follows: "You are instructed that the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to establish his claim for damages to his land arising from the construction of the public road through said land, and, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that he has been damaged by reason of the manner in which said road runs through his land, and in the manner of its construction and by reason of the shape and condition in which the land is left, then you will find for the plaintiff in such sum as you may find will compensate him for said damages less the benefits which he has received by the enhancement of the value of said lands by the construction of said road, if any. In determining the amount of plaintiff's damage, if any, you may take into consideration the market value of said lands, if it has been shown, prior to the building of the road, and the market value thereof if it has been shown, subsequent to the building of the road, and if you find that the market value of said land before and after the building of the road was affected only by the building of the road and the condition in which the land was left, then you are instructed that the measure of plaintiff's recovery will be the difference between the said market value before the road was built and after it was built. The plaintiff is also entitled to receive compensation for damage to his crops and fencing, if damage has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence."

A specific objection was interposed to this instruction on the ground...