Robards v. State

• Decision Date: 14 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 10356,10356
• Citation: 285 S.W.2d 247
• Parties: Henry A. ROBARDS et ux., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 247

285 S.W.2d 247

Henry A. ROBARDS et ux., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 10356.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Dec. 14, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1956.

W. Pat Camp, San Antonio, for appellants.

L. J. Gittinger, Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty., Walter W. Toxey, Jr., Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty., San Antonio, for appellee.

HUGHES, Justice.

This is a consolidated condemnation suit brought by the State of Texas against appellants Henry A. Robards and wife for the purpose of acquiring rights of way along U. S. Highway 81 in Bexar County.

Appellants conceded appellee's right to condemn leaving at issue only the amount of compensation to be paid. Trial to a jury resulted in verdict and judgment for appellants in the sum of $3,142.75, somewhat less than had been awarded by the Special Commissioners.

The evidence as to values was sharply conflicting. Appellants' first and second points, which in our opinion must be sustained, are that the court erred in admitting, over proper objections, evidence of other sales to the State, condemnor, of tracts along this highway for right of way purposes.

The following cases are authority for holding such evidence inadmissible:

Houston Independent School Dist. v. Reader, Tex.Civ.App., Galveston, 38 S.W.2d 610, no writ history; State v. Layton, Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 147 S.W.2d 515, no writ history; Phelps v. State, Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 157 S.W.2d 955, no writ history; City of Dallas v. Malloy, Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 214 S.W.2d 154, writ dismissed; Too Fan v. City of El Paso, Tex.Civ.App., El Paso, 214 S.W.2d 158, no writ history; Camp v. Commissioners' Court of El Paso County, Tex.Civ.App., El Paso, 279 S.W.2d 927, writ ref., n. r. e.; Atlantic Pipe Line Company v. Fields, Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 256 S.W.2d 940, writ ref., n. r. e.

These cases show that the rule has been invoked to aid both the condemnor and condemnee.

Appellee cites only one Texas case in support of its contention that this evidence was admissible: Marsh v. State, Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 276 S.W.2d 852, no writ history. In this case the Court stated that it would not presume sales made to the condemnor were involuntary and it declined to hold that evidence of such sales was inadmissible where there was no independent evidence that they were involuntary. In so holding we believe the Court was in conflict with its own opinion in Atlantic Pipe Line Co. v. Fields, supra, where the Court held similar evidence was inadmissible even though there was no extrinsic evidence as to the involuntary character of the sales. The Court in Marsh does not cite its prior decision in Atlantic.

Appellee here seeks to distinguish some if not all of the cases cited by us on the ground that they show that condemnation suits had been begun or threatened in each sale the evidence as to which was held inadmissible.

We will not analyze each case to determine if this is correct. We believe that the average landowner is intelligent enough to know that if the county or State has laid out a highway over his property that he can be compelled to surrender it, also that the county or State must acquire it or abandon the project. This knowledge, common knowledge we believe, is omnipresent in all such sales and prevents them from being competent evidence as to market value which means the price property will bring when offered for sale by one who desires to sell but is not obligated to sell and is purchased by one who desires to purchase but is under no necessity to purchase.

Appellee contends that admission of evidence as to sales to the State, if error, is harmless because there was other evidence, opinion evidence of its...