Porter v. Columbia County
| Decision Date | 12 November 1954 |
| Parties | Mary A. PORTER and J. H. Porter, Appellants, v. COLUMBIA COUNTY, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J. B. Hodges, Lake City, for appellant.
Ross Stanton, Jr., Tallahassee, W. J. Ferguson, Lake City, for appellee.
This is an eminent domain proceeding. An appeal was prosecuted from final judgment entered from the Circuit Court in Columbia County.
It will not be necessary to discuss all of the assignments of error as most of them have been long settled as fixed law in this state. No good purpose can be served by continuing to repeat law about which there is no longer any dispute.
The appellant insists that the Court committed reversible error because it would not permit one J. H. Porter to testify that he was one of the fee simple title owners of the property in question. It appears from the petition in eminent domain that the petitioner made the diligent inquiry required by the statute and so far as ascertainable by said diligent research, named only Mary Annie Porter as the owner of the property. J. H. Porter claimed that he was a joint owner and his testimony was offered as to his interest in the property. The Court sustained objections.
It is not the purpose of an eminent domain proceeding to try title to the property. See Peeler v. Duval County, Fla., 66 So.2d 247. The purpose of the eminent domain proceeding is to determine the value of the property taken and damage to the remainder, irrespective of ownership. Such questions as interest in the property, ownership, liens on property, may be determined in the same action in a summary proceeding after the jury has ascertained and rendered a verdict as to the value of the property taken and damages to the remainder.
The appellants contend that a denial in the answer of the necessity for the taking of the land raised an issue which should have been sumitted to the jury.
The petition is full and complete and sets forth that the petitioner is exercising its right of eminent domain by virtue of Chapter should have been submitted to the jury. Statutes, 1951, F.S.A. It then alleges that the land sought to be acquired is necessary for public use for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a state highway designated as State Road No. 25. The answer does not deny that the petitioner found it necessary to acquire that lands in question and the fact that petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. South Florida Water Management Dist., s. 96-3941
...353, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Here, the witness had an extensive background in both economics and real estate. Cf. Porter v. Columbia County, 75 So.2d 699, 700 (Fla.1954) (witness was incompetent because he was neither an appraiser, a real estate expert, nor a person with any necessary qual......
-
Tampa Suburban Utilities Corp. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority
...verdict for the value of the property as a whole. Cravero v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 312; Porter v. Columbia County, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 699. The statute authorizing interventions was not intended to allow parties to intervene who had no interest in the specific ......
-
Orlando/Orange Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. Tuscan Ridge, LLC, 5D10–3470.
...proceeding the portion to be awarded to all interested parties, including lessees. Allen, 447 So.2d at 1385–86; accord Porter v. Columbia Cnty., 75 So.2d 699 (Fla.1954) ; see also Carter v. State Rd. Dep't, 189 So.2d 793, 794 n. 1 (Fla.1966) (stating a leasehold is encompassed within proper......
-
Cravero v. Florida State Turnpike Authority
...the jury has ascertained and rendered a verdict as to the value of the property taken and damages to the remainder.' Porter v. Columbia County, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 699, 700. See also Shavers v. Duval County, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 684; 2 Lewis on Eminent Domain, 3d Ed., Sec. 716, p. 1253; 2 Nich......
-
Contingent fees for expert witnesses in eminent domain: competency or credibility?
...domain matters. (1) FLA. STAT. [sections] 73.071(3) (the jury determines the value of the property acquired); Porter v. Columbia County, 75 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 1954) (a witness who is not an appraiser or real estate expert and failing to show qualifications may not express an opinion as t......