Rose v. Board of County Com'rs of McCurtain County
| Decision Date | 05 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 34284,34284 |
| Citation | 241 P.2d 399,206 Okla. 105 |
| Parties | ROSE et al. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF McCURTAIN COUNTY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In the absence of error of law, a verdict for damages in condemnation proceedings, reasonably supported by conflicting evidence, will not be set aside on appeal.
H. P. Hosey and Bascom Coker, Idabel, for plaintiffs in error.
I. C. Sprague, County Atty., Idabel, for defendant in error.
The defendants appeal from a judgment based upon the verdict of a jury awarding damages in a condemnation proceeding.
The county in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, took a strip of land for road purposes running through the farm of the defendants. The road had been in use through the property for many years, but the county had apparently failed to obtain a formal easement. In building a farm-to-market road it was decided to widen the road and the condemnation proceeding was therefore brought for the entire tract, which included the old right-of-way as well as the additions thereto. The property taken consisted of 2.5 acres. Appraisers were regularly appointed and an award was made of $62.50 for the damages. The defendants demanded a jury trial and on trial before a jury a verdict was returned in the amount of $279.50, for which judgment was entered. The defendants appeal, contending that award was inadequate.
The sole proposition urged by the defendants here is that the judgment is not in accordance with the evidence for the reason the verdict is too small.
An examination of the record discloses that the evidence considered by the jury is sharply conflicting. The plaintiff introduced the testimony of the appraisers to show the property taken was unimproved land, worth approximately $25.00 per acre. These same witnesses testified that the road did not interfere with the buildings on the premises and that no changes in the buildings were necessary by reason of the construction of the road. On the other hand the defendants testified the new road was so close to the dwelling house that the house was rendered uninhabitable by the dust and that the dust made necessary the abandonment of the well close to the road and the digging of another well at a new location. It is our conclusion that the verdict of the jury is amply and reasonably supported by the evidence. This court has repeatedly held that where, in a condemnation case, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Stilwell, Okl. v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Co-op. Corp., 97-7104
...from a mistaken view of law, we will affirm the district court's adoption of the Commissioners' Report. See Rose v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 206 Okla. 105, 241 P.2d 399 (1952) (holding in a condemnation case if the evidence reasonably supports the verdict of the jury it will not be disturbed ......
-
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Maggi
...by competent evidence and under the well established rule of this Court will not be disturbed on appeal. Rose v. Board of County Com'rs of McCurtain County, 206 Okl. 105, 241 P.2d 399. This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of a jury in the matter of damages to be awarded for ......
-
Western Farmers Elec. Co-op. v. Yates, 36485
...found by its verdict that defendants were entitled to recover $3,250.00. It was pointed out in the case of Rose v. Board of Co. Comm'rs of McCurtain County, 206 Okl. 105, 241 P.2d 399 'This court has repeatedly held that where, in a condemnation case, the evidence reasonably supported the v......
- Barnes v. Ross