Palmer v. Harris County
| Decision Date | 29 May 1902 |
| Citation | 69 S.W. 229 |
| Parties | PALMER et al. v. HARRIS COUNTY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Harris county court; E. H. Vasmer, Judge.
Proceeding by the county of Harris to condemn lands of Susan M. Palmer and husband for the construction of a ditch to drain a public road. From a judgment assessing damages, the owners appeal. Reversed.
L. B. Moody, for appellants. F. L. Schwander, Co. Atty., for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment of the county court in a proceeding by the county of Harris to condemn land belonging to the appellants for the construction of a ditch to drain a public road.
The court correctly refused to submit to the jury the question of the necessity of taking the land. That matter was concluded by the action of the commissioners' court in determining that it was necessary to use the land for the purpose of draining the public road. Acts 27th Leg. (Gen. Laws, p. 223) c. 84, § 14; Mills, Em. Dom. § 11; 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1057.
But the judgment of the court below should be reversed because the jury have clearly allowed the appellant inadequate compensation for the land. It may be that the jury were influenced by the idea that it might not have been necessary to use all of the tract sought to be condemned for the construction of the ditch, but the proceeding was to condemn the entire tract, and so far as presented by the record the value of the land might be so affected by the construction of the ditch as to destroy its use by the appellants for any purpose. Hence, the inquiry must be addressed to the market value of the entire tract sought to be condemned. In the application for condemnation, the county attorney put the value at $100 an acre; the commissioners assessed the same at $75; while the jury in the county court rendered a verdict assessing it at $40, for which judgment was rendered. The valuation is found upon the evidence of one witness, and is the lowest valuation given by any witness. Though it is true that one of the witnesses testified that the land was not fit for cultivation, yet he did not fix any value. All of the other witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant, of whom quite a number were called, testified that the land was worth from $60 to $300 an acre. The verdict is so manifestly against the great preponderance of the evidence that we deem it our duty to set it aside. In view of another trial of the case, the attention of the court below is called to the form of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arcola Sugar Mills Co. v. Houston Lighting & P. Co.
...Domain", 3d Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1062, 1063, 1068; National Ass'n v. Arroyo, etc., Tex.Civ. App., 110 S.W.2d 150; Palmer v. Harris County, 29 Tex.Civ.App. 340, 69 S.W. 229; McInnis v. Brown County, Water Imp. Dist. No. 1, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 741; Cane Belt R. Co. v. Hughes, 31 Tex.Civ. App.......
-
Richland School Township v. Overmyer
... ... trustee of Richland township, Fulton county, against appellee ... for the appropriation, by condemnation proceedings, of one ... acre of land ... 127 Mass. 408; Boom Co. v. Patterson ... (1878), 98 U.S. 403, 25 L.Ed. 206; Palmer v ... Harris County (1902), 29 Tex. Civ. App. 340, 69 S.W ... 229; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v ... ...
-
Texas Elec. Service Co. v. Campbell, 5331
...Webb v. Dameron, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 581; Bradford v. Magnolia Pipe Line Co., Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W.2d 242; Palmer v. Harris County, 29 Tex.Civ.App. 340, 69 S.W. 229. Appellant complains of the testimony of defendant, Seth Campbell, to the effect that he had observed employees, vehicle......
-
Texas Elec. Service Co. v. Linebery
...Webb v. Dameron, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 581; Bradford v. Magnolia Pipe Line Co., Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W.2d 242; Palmer v. Harris County, 29 Tex.Civ.App. 340, 69 S.W. 229. It was not within the province of the court below to limit the condemnor's right of ingress and egress over and across ......