Queen v. State Highway Dept., 37789
| Citation | 100 Ga.App. 190,110 S.E.2d 541 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 37789,No. 2,37789,2 |
| Parties | J. P. QUEEN et al. v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Syllabus by the Court.
Following the provisions of Code, § 6-1608 an appellate court shall not disturb the judgment of a trial judge in the first grant of a new trial unless abuse of discretion is shown, or following many decisions of the appellate courts, unless it is made to appear that no other verdict than the one rendered could possibly have been returned under the law and facts of a given case. However, the trial judge must specify the ground or grounds upon which the new trial is granted and if granted upon one or more special grounds, the judgment shall be reviewable by the appellate court, and the case shall be reversed if harmful error is shown in the grant of a new trial on any ground.
This is a condemnation case wherein the State Highway Department filed a petition seeking to acquire title by condemnation to a certain described parcel of land 3 ft. wide and 77 ft. long. A special master was appointed by the judge of the superior court to go into the merits of the case and make a suitable award as to the value of the land. This special master recommended to the court that the condemnees be paid $400 as the actual market value of the property sought to be condemned, and $1,100 consequential damages, a total of $1,500. The condemnees filed an objection to this recommendation to the proper forum, the superior court. A de novo trial was had. A jury found in favor of the condemnees in the amount of $300 for the land and consequential damages in the amount of $4,200. The condemnor moved for a new trial. The trial judge granted the new trial. It is on this ruling that the case is brought to the Court of Appeals for review.
Walter V. Beasley, Atlanta, Robert K. Ballew, Blue Ridge, for plaintiff in error.
William Butt, Herman J. Spence, Blue Ridge, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Paul Miller, E. J. Summerour, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant in error.
The record is replete with evidence of the value of the condemned land. One witness on behalf of the condemnor valued the land at $10 to $12 and the value of the damage as making a total of $100 or possibly $300. Another testified that the damages should be $50; two others testified that it would be worth $500 to the condemnee; and the other witnesses for the condemnor testified substantially along this line as to the value of the property taken and the resulting damage.
Witnesses for the condemnee testified as to the value of the land and damage thereto as being from $5,000 upwards to $7,500, the testimony as to the value varying with each witness. The condemnee estimated the value of the house to be 'at least $12,000 before the strip of land was taken, and immediately thereafter the value was estimated to be $3,500'.
The petition, as twice amended, contains the general grounds and two special grounds.
In view of what we have reiterated hereinabove, the trial judge was within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Johnson, 43353
...whether the verdict was demanded by the law and the evidence. Glenn v. Tankersley, 187 Ga. 129(1), 200 S.E. 709; Queen v. State Highway Dept., 100 Ga.App. 190, 110 S.E.2d 541. See CTC Finance Corp. v. Holden, 221 Ga. 809, 147 S.E.2d 427. We have examined the transcript in its entirety and c......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Lord
...the case, the only question we will consider is whether the verdict was demanded by the law and the evidence. Queen v. State Highway Department, 100 Ga.App. 190, 110 S.E.2d 541; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Johnson, 117 Ga.App. 278, 160 S.E.2d 211. An examination of the transcript shows a ......