Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Lea
Decision Date | 05 March 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 4-7550.,4-7550. |
Citation | 186 S.W.2d 429 |
Parties | MORRISON-KNUDSEN CO., Inc., v. LEA. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Saline County; Thomas E. Toler, Judge.
Action by Roane Lea against the Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., for damages to plaintiff's farm as the result of defendant's construction of a pipe line. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Ernest Briner, of Benton, and Henderson, Meek, Catlett & Henderson, of Little Rock, for appellant.
Kenneth C. Coffelt, of Benton, for appellee.
The sole issue presented is whether a verdict of $600 is excessive in this case.
Roane Lea was the owner of a farm of 170 acres in Saline County. On November 26, 1943 he executed a "Grant of Easement" whereby, for $52.90 and the agreements therein contained, he allowed the grantee the right, inter alia, to lay, operate, and maintain a pipe line across the land. In the instrument the grantee agreed: "* * * to pay any and all damage to stock, crops, fences, timber, improvements, and land which may be suffered by the grantor(s) from the construction, operation, alteration, renewal, inspection or maintenance of such pipe line(s), power line and telephone line."
The appellant company, under the authority of the said grant, entered on the lands, and constructed the pipe line, and inflicted damages to appellee's property. When no payment was made for such damages the appellee instituted this action in the Circuit Court for damages. The cause was tried to a jury, and from a verdict and consequent judgment for $600, the appellant presents this appeal, arguing, as before stated, the one question of whether the verdict is excessive.
I. On Appeal, this Court Gives to the Testimony Tending to Sustain the Verdict its Highest Probative Value. Bolin v. Drainage District, 206 Ark. 459, 176 S.W.
2d 143; see West's Arkansas Digest, vol. 2, Appeal and Error. This rule applies also to any question concerning the verdict as excessive. Malvern & O. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 181 Ark. 626, 26 S.W.2d 1107. In 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1567, p. 433, the rule is stated: See also West's Decennial Digests, Appeal and Error.
II. Evidence Introduced by Plaintiff Concerning the Amount of the Damages.
(a) The plaintiff detailed various items of damages: drainage ditches filled up with rocks and dirt thereby flooding several acres, crops ruined, top soil removed, land left in holes, etc. Then plaintiff made answers to questions as follows:
(b) C. C. Allen, a farmer and resident of Saline County, testified that he knew this land, and had viewed it to determine the extent of the damages. He detailed various items of damage, much the same as the plaintiff, and concluded that for farming purposes the land was ruined, and that the damage was $1000.
(c) W. F. Rich testified that for twenty-three years he had lived within a mile of the land, and was familiar with it, and had viewed it to determine the extent of the damages inflicted by the appellants. After detailing various items of damage, he stated that the land was unfit for farming. The record discloses:
To continue reading
Request your trial