Hoblik v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 December 1945
• Docket Number: No. 13056.,13056.
• Citation: 151 F.2d 971
• Parties: HOBLIK et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

151 F.2d 971 (1945)

HOBLIK et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13056.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 12, 1945.

Jay M. Rowland, of Hot Springs, Ark., for appellants.

Kelsey Martin Mott, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (J. Edward Williams, Acting Head, Lands Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., John E. Harris, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in condemnation proceedings brought by the United States to acquire 11,921 square feet of land for the expansion of the Army and Navy General Hospital in the city of Hot Springs, Arkansas. The land belonged to the appellants. The Government filed a declaration of taking on January 31, 1944, the day the proceedings were commenced, and deposited $10,000 as the estimated compensation. The issue of just compensation was the only issue tried. The jury returned a verdict for $11,000.

The appellants, upon the trial, did nothing to direct the court's attention to the contention that the evidence would not justify a verdict as favorable to the Government as that which was returned. After the verdict, the appellants moved for a new trial upon the following grounds: (1) That the verdict was inadequate; (2) that the verdict was a quotient verdict; and (3) that the jury did not give adequate consideration to the question of value. The motion was denied.

The points upon which the appellants rely for reversal, as stated in the index to their brief, are the following:

"Point I — The jury made a finding of fact as to the value of the property without support in the evidence.

"Point II — The Court erred in denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of a quotient verdict.

"Point III — That the verdict is so insufficient that it denies the appellants due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict is usually not subject to review on appeal unless the record shows that, during the trial, that question was presented to the trial court by a motion for a directed verdict, a request for a ruling or an instruction, or some other equivalent action. Ayers v. United States, 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 607, 608, 609; Combs v. United States, 8 Cir., 65 F.2d 787; Emanuel v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 8 Cir., 127 F.2d 175, 176; United States v. Harrell, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 504, 506; Palmer v. Miller, 8 Cir., 145 F.2d 926, 930. The reason for this rule is that, since the jurisdiction of this Court is appellate, it cannot retry the case or consider a question which was not presented to or ruled upon by the trial court at the trial. In this case, however, we shall assume that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is properly before us. In a case such as this, where the sole issue was one of fact for the jury, it reasonably can be urged that a verdict, if entirely without evidentiary support, should be set aside to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. Compare, United States v. Harrell, supra, 133 F.2d 504, 506, 507.

The property of the appellants, taken by the Government, consisted of a lot upon which there was a frame four-story hotel building about sixty-five years old. The hotel, which contained about 45 guest rooms, about ten bathrooms, two lobbies, two dining rooms, a kitchen, storeroom, basement and boiler room, was being operated by the appellants as a hotel at the time of the taking. They had acquired it in 1936 for $6,000. It was insured against fire for $2,000. The appellant Charles W. Hoblik testified that the property was worth $52,800, and that, since its acquisition, $19,780 had been expended in repairs and improvements. He introduced no evidence to substantiate his estimate of...