Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Amos, 48323
| Decision Date | 22 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 48323,48323 |
| Citation | 319 So.2d 231 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. J. P. AMOS. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Merrimen M. Watkins, Crystal Springs, for appellant.
Armstrong & Hoffman, John T. Armstrong, Jr., Hazlehurst, for appellee.
Before RODGERS, SUGG and BROOM, JJ.
Mississippi State Highway Commission (Commission) appeals from a judgment of $1,750 entered in a special court of eminent domain of Copiah County, Mississippi. We affirm.
The chief issue is whether, under Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-27-7 (1972), a judge may in a special court of eminent domain permit the landowner (appellee) to file his statement of values less than ten days before trial date.
Condemnation of 3.2 acres of appellee's land from a fifty-six acre tract was sought by the Commission in a special court. After filing its application on March 30, 1973, the Commission filed its statement of values and damages totaling $1,065 on May 14 next. On May 25, the appellee filed a motion for additional time in which to plead. Neither the Commission nor the court responded to the motion for additional time, and on May 31 the appellee filed a statement of values ($1,840). Just before the trial of the cause on June 5, 1973, appellee, without leave of the court, filed an amended statement of values ($2,160). The Commission moved for a default judgment on the ground that the appellee had failed to file proper pleadings. No other response or objection was made by the Commission to the appellee's amended statement of values. The court overruled the motion and entered an order nunc pro tunc in effect sustaining the appellee's original motion for additional time in which to plead and allowing the amended statement of values.
The Commission argues that the court abused its discretion and erred in entering the nunc pro tunc order allowing the landowner to file his amended statement of values on the day of the trial instead of ten days prior thereto pursuant to section 11-27-7.
We note that section 11-27-7 provides that the jurge 'for good cause shown, may increase or decrease the time for pleading' by either party. As said in Coleman v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 289 So.2d 918 (Miss.1974), trial judges have discretion in invoking the prerogative to enlarge the time for pleading as specified in the statute. Coleman also held that the provisions of Chapter 27 of Mississippi Code Annotated require that the issue of value be determined by a jury and that no default judgment will issue, even in the absence of pleadings by the landowner.
From the record, it cannot be said that the trial judge abused his discretion by entering the order nunc pro tunc and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Blackwell, 49586
...values in this cause, where the Commission did not request a continuance or delay, was not reversible error. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Amos, 319 So.2d 231 (Miss.1975); Coleman v. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n, 289 So.2d 918 The question of excessiveness of the jury verdict need......
-
Mississippi State Highway Com'n v. Viverette, 57824
...were allowable but not where they would operate to the prejudice of the condemnor. See Coleman, supra, and Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Amos, 319 So.2d 231 (Miss.1975). In Tysons, Inc. v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 367 So.2d 939 (Miss.1979), the Court took a strict vie......
-
State Highway Com'n of Mississippi v. Hyman, 07-CC-59272
...good cause shown, may increase or decrease the time for pleading by the petitioner or by the defendant." In Mississippi State Highway Comm'n. v. Amos, 319 So.2d 231 (Miss.1975), the trial court allowed the landowner to file an amended statement of values on the day of trial. On appeal the C......
-
Hudspeth v. State Highway Com'n of Mississippi, 57697
...treated as pleadings are treated in civil causes in the circuit court. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 11-27-7 (1972). Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Amos, 319 So.2d 231, 233 (Miss.1975). In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Arndt, 304 So.2d 281, 283 (Miss.1974) we cited 18 Am.Jur. Emine......