Keeney v. Com., Dept. of Highways
Decision Date | 03 February 1961 |
Parties | Huleon KEENEY et al., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellees. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
John G. Prather, Somerset, for appellants.
F. D. Curry, Dept. of Highways, Frankfort, for appellees.
STANLEY, Commissioner.
This is a proceeding to condemn 1.64 acres of land for the widening of a highway.
The judgment in the Pulaski County Court entered May 22, 1958, confirmed an itemized award of commissioners of $2,202. The Department of Highways seasonably filed exceptions and an appeal to the circuit court. KRS 177.087. On June 10 the property owners, Huleon Keeney and wife, filed an 'Answer and Counterclaim' in which they asserted that the county court award was fair and reasonable and prayed that the Commonwealth's appeal be dismissed. On July 16 the owners filed an 'Amended Answer and Counterclaim' in which they alleged that $8,690 was the fair value of the land taken and incidental damages to the remainder of their property. They prayed judgment for that sum. On the trial in the circuit court the verdict was for $1,770. The landowners seasonably filed notice of an appeal to this court, which they have prosecuted as being an appeal of right. KRS 21.060(1).
The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the amount involved is the difference between the county court judgment of $2,202 and the circuit court judgment of $1,770, i. e., $432, and the appellants had no motion for an appeal, as required by KRS 21.060(2). The contention rested upon our ruling that where the condemnee does not appeal or cross-appeal from the county court judgment, he cannot claim more than was awarded in the lower court. See Bullitt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 298 S.W.2d 290; Bennett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 322 S.W.2d 706; Commonwealth v. Mayo, Ky., 324 S.W.2d 802. We have overruled the appellees' motion to dismiss since the judgment should be considered with the pleadings, Rutherford v. Modern Bakery, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 274, and the appellants had pleaded a right to recover $6,483 more than the county court judgment in their favor.
Should the pleading styled 'Amended Answer and Counterclaim' be regarded as tantamount to a cross-appeal and exceptions to the award made by the commissioners, it was filed 85 days after the county court judgment. The statute permits and requires such an appeal to be made within thirty days after the judgment. KRS 177.087. See Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Clarke, Ky., 340 S.W.2d 442. The circuit court should have stricken or disregarded the pleading or attempt to cross-appeal because it was too late, with the result that the landowners were not entitled to claim more than $2,202, the amount of the county court judgment. See cases cited above.
We come to the question of whether there was error in the trial or the verdict was inadequate by $432.
The statute prescribing proceedings for condemnation of property for public highways, KRS 177.087, provides that the jury, upon the application of either party, 'shall be sent by the court, in the charge of the sheriff, to view the land and material.' See Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Farra, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 696.
After the evidence was concluded, the court told the jury he was having them view the premises and stated
The record recites, 'Mr. Forrest Roark is sworn by the court.' The terms or purpose of the oath are not revealed. Mr. Roark had testified that he was 'senior right of way agent' of the Department of Highways in the district. He defined the plans for the widening and construction of the highway over the property being condemned and described its characteristics, terrain and effect of the drainage to be made.
The defendants' attorney entered an objection to the directions of the court that the jury might receive information and evidence from Mr. Roark 'outside the presence of the court and counsel for the parties.' The objection was overruled.
Under the provision of KRS 29.301 (formerly Civil Code of Practice, Sec. 318), which is of general application, the court in its discretion may order the jury as a body to be conducted to real property which is the subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dickerson Const. Co., Inc. v. Dozier
...access to anything which has not been introduced into evidence. See Lyon v. Bush, 49 Haw. 116, 412 P.2d 662 (1966); Keeney v. Commonwealth, 345 S.W.2d 481 (Ky., 1961); Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v. Williams, 79 Misc.2d 991, 361 N.Y.S.2d 842 (1974); Gertz v. Bass, 59 Ill.App.2d 180, 208 N......
-
Lyon v. Bush
...1481. See Public Operating Corp. v. Weingart, 257 App.Div. 379, 13 N.Y.S.2d 182; Hatfield v. Cheaney, 76 Ill. 488; Keeney v. Commonwealth, 345 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Ky.1961). 'The law is well settled that it is improper to permit the jury in arriving at its verdict to consider papers or document......
-
Com., Dept. of Highways v. Berryman
...with the result that the landowners were not entitled to claim more than * * * the amount of the county court judgment.' Keeney v. Com., Ky.1961, 345 S.W.2d 481. See also Bennett v. Com., Ky.1959, 322 S.W.2d 706. The Commonwealth never questioned the defective appeal and did not object to t......
-
Kiser v. Bartley Min. Co.
...asserted within the 20-day period allowed by KRS 342.285 for taking an appeal, and therefore it was too late. Cf. Keeney v. Commonwealth Dept. of Highways, Ky., 345 S.W.2d 481; Scott v. Alaska Industrial Board, 123 F.Supp. 361, 15 Alaska 146; Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Marshall, 9 Cir., ......