Housing Authority of Phenix City v. Stillwell

• Decision Date: 19 June 1941
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 187.
• Citation: 3 So.2d 55,241 Ala. 420
• Parties: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PHENIX CITY v. STILLWELL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So.2d 55

241 Ala. 420

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PHENIX CITY v. STILLWELL.

4 Div. 187.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 19, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Russell County J.S. Williams, Judge.

Roy L. Smith, J.B. Hicks, and W.R. Belcher, all of Phenix City for appellant.

J.W. Brassell, of Phenix City, for appellee.

BOULDIN, Justice.

This cause arose from a proceeding by the Housing Authority of the City of Phenix City for the condemnation of many parcels of lands owned by numerous separate parties.

The case of Housing Authority, & c., v. Addie C. Harris Ala.Sup., 3 So.2d 54, this day decided, arose from the same proceeding.

In the instant case the commissioners reported the just compensation to which Mr. Stillwell was entitled for his lands so taken to be $8,250. Their report in this regard being sustained in the Probate Court, the landowners appealed to the Circuit Court for trial de novo before a jury touching the just compensation to which he was entitled. The jury awarded $15,000. From a judgment following such verdict, the present appeal is prosecuted.

On a trial of this case, the defendant, landowner, offered in evidence, and the court admitted, over the objection of the plaintiff the same exhibits, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, considered in the Harris case, supra, namely, the reports of the commissioners touching the just compensation awarded other several landowners for other parcels of property in the area of the city being condemned for the same project.

For the reasons, and upon the authorities, cited in the Harris case, supra, we hold the admission of this evidence was error to reverse in the instant case.

It is argued that the reason of the rule stated in Alabama Power Co. v. Sides, 212 Ala. 687, 103 So. 859, and followed in Leahy v. State, 214 Ala. 107, 106 So. 599, and Pickens County v. Jordan, 239 Ala. 589, 196 So. 121, is based on the element of compromise to avoid litigation on questions of value where the parties have by negotiation agreed upon a valuation of other and similar properties.

In offering Exhibit No. 1, it was announced that the condemner had offered the owner the sum awarded by the commissioners.

Other evidence discloses negotiations between the condemner and property owners proceeded pending the appraisal by the commissioners, and when agreement was reached, the commissioners reported the values so agreed upon. This brings such valuation within the reason of the rule. Moreover, in Pickens County v. Jordan, supra, the same rule was stated as applicable to valuations reported by the commissioners, and paid by the condemner.

The same, if not stronger reasons, are present in such cases. After commissioners, qualified and sworn according to law, have appraised the property and reported the just compensation found by them, and such finding is made the judgment of the court, the condemner is confronted with the problem of taking an appeal, and litigating de novo the question of value. So, also, the landowner, if displeased with the award. Such a situation is wholly different from a negotiated sale of property by persons at arms length. Inasmuch as the cause must be retried, we deem it proper to restate the rules governing such trials for the guidance of the court and the parties.

In stating the issue to the jury, the trial court said: "The facts, I take it, will show that the Housing Authority in a regularly constituted way, sought to condemn and did condemn for its use certain real estate in the City of Phenix City and that, in pursuance of their rights they appointed their appraisers who went out and appraised the property and made an assessment as to its value which became in law a judgment. Now the owner of that property was not bound by that, he had the right to come to a jury of his country and ask that it fix a fair valuation or say what would be fair and just compensation for the property taken. The issue, as a matter of fact, is, What is fair and just compensation for the property which the Housing Authority has taken for its purposes and uses. There is no controversy as to the regularity of the proceedings, and the plaintiff will make out its prima facie case when it shows that the condemnation was done and the assessment made, etc., and the burden will then shift to the defendant."

Following this announcement, the plaintiff, condemner, offered that part of the report, and of the file, relating to this particular tract, and rested. Defen...