Samuelson v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irr. Dist.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1942
• Docket Number: No. 12005.,12005.
• Citation: 125 F.2d 838
• Parties: SAMUELSON et al. v. CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER & IRRIGATION DIST.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

125 F.2d 838 (1942)

SAMUELSON et al. v. CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER & IRRIGATION DIST.

No. 12005.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 19, 1942.

William H. Wright, of Omaha, Neb. (F. A. Wright, of Omaha, Neb., and G. J. McGinley, of Ogallala, Neb., on the brief), for appellants.

M. M. Maupin, of Ogallala, Neb. (R. O. Canaday and P. E. Boslaugh, both of Hastings, Neb., and R. H. Beatty, of North Platte, Neb., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STONE, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSEN, Circuit Judge.

This case is controlled by the principles discussed in Burnett v. Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, 8 Cir., 125 F.2d 836, this day decided.

The property taken by the condemnation consisted of a store-building, a residence, a one-room rental structure, and various outbuildings, together with the real estate on which they were situated, in the village of Lemoyne, Nebraska. The lowest value placed upon the whole of this property by any of appellee's experts was $5,875, while the highest value placed upon it by any expert for appellants was $16,410. Appellants also claimed consequential damages, by reason of the necessity of removing the fixtures and stock of merchandise from the store. The only testimony as to the specific amount of this consequential damage was by one of the appellants, who estimated that the removal would occasion a depreciation of $1,088.34 to the fixtures, and $1,500 to the stock of merchandise.

The jury returned a general verdict in favor of appellants for $7,150, but, in response to special interrogatories requested by appellants, it placed a value on the store property of $1,765, which was $875 lower than the testimony of any expert witness; fixed the value of the one-room rental structure at $170, which was $40 lower than the testimony of any expert witness; and allowed consequential damages to the store fixtures in the sum of $350, and to the stock of merchandise in the sum of $360, which amounts were $738.34 and $1,140 lower, respectively, than the uncontradicted testimony of one of the appellants as to these items.

Appellants' argument for reversal can perhaps most easily be summarized by the following quotation from their brief: "The fact that in two instances the verdict is for an amount less than the testimony of witnesses for both the appellants and the appellee, and that in two other instances the jury disregarded undisputed testimony, would seem to establish conclusively that the verdict was the result of partiality, passion, prejudice, or mistake on the part of the jury."

As we have indicated in the Burnett case, supra, a jury is never required, in an ordinary condemnation proceeding, to accept as conclusive the estimates of value made...