Roberts v. State
| Decision Date | 29 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 15921,15921 |
| Citation | 350 S.W.2d 388 |
| Parties | Ira C. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
L. F. Sanders, Canton, Wynne & Wynne, Wills Point, for appellant.
Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., Morgan Nesbitt, John B. Webster, Robert G. Scofield and David R. Thomas, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
This is a condemnation proceeding instituted in the trial court by the State of Texas to condemn for highway purposes approximately 20.71 acres for right-of-way, and .61 acres for a channel easement, out of a 281.6 acre farm belonging to appellant, said property being necessary in the construction of Federal Interstate Highway 20 traversing Van Zandt County, Texas. In the taking of the necessary acreage, appellant's farm is divided into two parts so that approximately 55.54 acres remains on the south side of the proposed highway and approximately 205 acres on the north side. The parties stipulated as to the right to condemn, the statutory steps which had been taken, leaving only the issues concerning valuation of the property. Following the suggestion of the Supreme Court in State v. Carpenter, 126 Tex. 604, 89 S.W.2d 194, the trial court submitted the case to a jury upon three special issues. In response to Special Issue No. 1 the jury found that the market value of the land taken was $2,986.60. In answer to Special Issue No. 2 the jury found the market value of the land, exclusive of the amount taken, immediately before the taking, to be $36,540. In answer to Special Issue No. 3 as to what would be the market value of the remainder of the condemnee's tract of land immediately after the taking by condemnor, the jury answered '$33,977'. Final judgment based upon this verdict the landowner has perfected this appeal. No motion for new trial was filed in the trial court since, in accordance with Rule 329-a Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, (prior to the amendment to said Rule) the judgment was entered on November 4, 1960 and the term of court ended on November 6, 1960.
Appellant presents two points of error, (1) that there was no evidence to support the judgment entered by the court and the answer of the jury to Special Issue No. 3, and (2) that the judgment entered and the answer of the jury to Special Issue No. 3 was contrary to and against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of all the evidence and was clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.
As is usual in cases of this kind involving questions of value of real property the testimony of the various witnesses varied in different amounts and percentages. Testimony for the condemnee was presented from six witnesses whose opinions of the values varied from a high of $160 per acre to a low of $140 per acre for the 21.32 acres taken for highway purposes and easements. Their testimony for the balance of the land not taken varied from a high of $160 per acre to a low of $140 per acre before taking, and from a high of $98 (25% decrease) to a low of $75 (or 50% decrease), after the taking or a difference before and after the taking of a figure of $20,822.40 to a low of $9,109.80. All of these witnesses testified to a decrease in value of the land following the taking.
For the condemnor only one witness was presented, T. M. Winn, who testified that the part taken was worth from $106 to $107 per acre or a total of $2,300; that the value of the remainder before taking would be $106 per acre or a total of $27,700 and that the value of the remainder, after taking, considering a decrease in value, would be $24,500, leaving a net damage of $3,200. The witness Winn frankly admitted to a definite decrease in value of condemnee's land by the bisection of the property with its incident problems of access, drainage, etc.
In order to present a clear and comprehensive view of the various valuations placed upon this property we submit the following schedule:
Schedule
--------
281.6 Acres Whole Farm
21.32 Acres Part Taken
________(Including easement)
260.28 Acres Remaining
Owner's Part Remainder Remainder Damages
Witnesses Taken Before After
----------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- ----------
1. Charles Curtis $3,198.00 $39,042.00 $23,425.20
(150.00) (60.00 an acre) $15,616.80
3,411.20 41,644.80 26,028.00 15,616.80
(160.00)
2. Jack Lester $3,198.00 $39,042.00 $19,521.00 $19,521.00
(150.00) (50%)
3,411.20 41,644.80 20,822.40 20,822.40
(160.00)
3. George Yates $3,198.00 $39,042.00 $26,028.00 $13,014.00
(150.00) (50 an acre)
4. Ralph Liston $2,984.80 $36,439.20 $27,329.40 $ 9,109.80
(140.00) (25%)
5. Irby Mills $3,411.20 $41,644.80 $29,151.36 $12,493.44
(160.00) (30%)
6. R. D. Deen $3,198.00 $39,042.00 $19,521.00 $19,521.00
(150.00) (50%)
----------------------------------------------------
State's Witness
T. M. Winn $2,300.00 $27,700.00 $24,500.00 $ 3,200.00
----------------------------------------------------
Jury Findings $2,986.60 $36,540.00 $33,977.00 $ 2,563.00
----------------------------------------------------
Since appellant's points are directed to Special Issue No. 3, which has to do with the value of the property remaining after taking, attention is directed to the third column of the above schedule which immediately reveals that the jury findings of $33,977 is far in excess of any testimony given by either the witnesses for condemnor or condemnee. The highest value assigned to the property by any witness for the appellant is from the witness Mills who sets the value after taking at $29,151.36. The State's witness, Winn, sets the value after taking at $24,500. Both of these maximum figures are less than that assigned by the jury and it is appellant's contention that this, taken with the overall picture of the case in its entirety, demonstrates that the answer of the jury to Special Issue No. 3 is contrary to the great weight and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com., Dept. of Highways v. Stocker
...the verdict must be so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. Roberts v. State of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 350 S.W.2d 388 (1964). Jayson v. United States, CCA 5, 294 F.2d 808 (1961) decided that the ruling of the trial court will not be disturbed ......
-
Silberstein v. State
...value witness who testified that the market value of appellant's remainder after taking was $33,960.00. Appellant relies on Roberts v. State of Texas, 350 S.W.2d 388 (Tex . Civ.App.1961, no writ), wherein the court reversed a condemnation award made in the trial court because it was so cont......
-
Callejo v. Brazos Elec. Power Co-op., Inc.
...1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tuttle v. State, 381 S.W.2d 330, 336 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Roberts v. State, 350 S.W.2d 388, 391 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1961, no writ); McConnico v. Texas Power & Light Co., 335 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1960, writ ref'd n.......
-
Texas Power & Light Co. v. Lovinggood
...to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong? We faced a similar situation in the case of Roberts v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 350 S.W.2d 388. In an opinion in which Justice Williams spoke for the court we found that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of ......