Searcy v. State Highway Commission
| Decision Date | 08 May 1937 |
| Docket Number | 32940. |
| Parties | SEARCY v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
On landowner's appeal from award of commissioners appointed by district court to appraise land condemned by highway commission, commissioner's testimony as to amount of award held not admissible on cross-examination to test commissioner's credibility, where commissioner's evaluation as witness was identical with amount of award.
On landowner's appeal from award of commissioners appointed by district court to appraise land condemned by highway commission, error in permitting commissioner to testify on cross-examination as to amount of award was not cured by instruction that jury should not consider testimony in determining market value of land.
On landowner's appeal from award of commissioners appointed by district court to appraise land condemned by highway commission, permitting witnesses to testify as to amount paid by highway commission for another tract in same vicinity held error where such tract was sold as result of condemnation proceedings.
On landowner's appeal from award of commissioners appointed by district court to appraise land condemned by highway commission, error in permitting witnesses to testify as to amount paid by commission for another tract in vicinity sold as result of condemnation proceedings was not cured by instruction that jury should not consider testimony in determining value of land, but that they might consider testimony in determining weight of opinions of witnesses alleged to have knowledge of market value of property in vicinity.
On landowner's appeal from award of commissioners appointed by district court to appraise land condemned by highway commission, permitting witnesses to testify as to offer made to landowner prior to institution of condemnation proceedings at figure in excess of amount allowed by commissioners held error.
On landowner's appeal from award of commissioners appointed by district court to appraise land condemned by highway commission, permitting witnesses to testify as to investment value of land held error, since question at issue was as to market value of land before and after condemnation.
On landowner's appeal from award of commissioners appointed by district court to appraise land condemned by highway commission, permitting witnesses to testify as to investment value of land held error, even if investment value were a criterion for arriving at fair market value, where it was shown that witnesses' knowledge on which they based testimony was matter of conjecture about which they freely admitted they knew nothing.
1. In an action by the highway commission to condemn land for highway purposes where the landowner has appealed from the award of the commissioners appointed by the district court to appraise the land, it was error on cross-examination to permit one of the commissioners when he testified on the hearing on the appeal to testify as to how much he awarded the landowner for the land when he appraised it.
2. In an action such as that described in paragraph 1 of this syllabus, it was error to permit witnesses to testify as to what the highway commission paid for another tract of land in the vicinity of the land being taken where the land testified about was sold as the result of condemnation proceedings.
3. In an action such as that described in paragraph 1 of this syllabus, it was error to permit witnesses to testify as to an offer the landowner had for the land taken prior to the institution of the condemnation proceedings.
4. In an action such as that described in paragraph 1 of this syllabus, it was error to permit witnesses to testify as to the investment value of the land taken rather than its market value before and after the taking.
5. Where witnesses in an action such as that described in paragraph 1 of this syllabus testified as to the investment value of the land taken, the record is examined and it is held that the facts upon which the witnesses based their opinion of the investment value of the land were reached as the result of speculation and conjecture and formed no proper basis for a correct opinion.
Appeal from District Court, Greeley County; Fred J. Evans, Judge.
Action by Louise K. Searcy against the State Highway Commission. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed conditionally in accordance with opinion.
Martin Trued, of Tribune, Wint Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Henry E Martz and Ralph M. Hope, both of Topeka, for appellant.
R. D Armstrong and D. B. Lang, both of Scott City, and George L Reid, of Tribune, for appellee.
This was an action whereby the state highway commission condemned ground for highway construction purposes. The landowner appealed from the award made by the appraisers. A greater amount than was allowed by the appraisers was allowed by the district court. The highway commission appeals from that judgment.
The land condemned is 1.5 acres which comprised a part of a 5-acre tract just outside the city of Tribune. The tract was bordered on the east by state highway 27 and on the north by highway 96. The land taken was a strip off each side of the original tract and a triangular piece taken at the corner. The purpose of taking the land was to do away with a square corner.
There was a filling station and cabin camp located on this land. As a result of the condemnation, the gasoline pumps, the cabins a barn, a shed, and a garage had to be moved off the land taken back to new positions on the portion of the land remaining. At the time of the trial in the district court all these buildings had been satisfactorily moved to new locations on the remaining land. The cost of moving these buildings is one element in the claim which the landowner is pressing against the commission.
The commissioners appointed by the district judge allowed damages as follows:
The commission paid the amount of the appraisement to the clerk of the district court and took possession of the condemned property. When the appeal was tried in the district court, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $2,558.91. After a motion for a new trial was overruled, judgment was rendered in favor of the landowner in that amount. The commission appeals.
Various errors are assigned by the commission. They will be considered in the order presented.
In the first place, counsel for the landowner in making his opening statement to the panel before a jury had been selected to try the action stated what amount the commissioners had allowed. Counsel objected to this and asked the court to discharge the panel. The court denied this motion, but did instruct the jury to disregard all statements of counsel as to the award of the commissioners. If the case were one where this circumstance stood alone, this would not be considered of sufficient gravity to warrant ordering a new trial. After the trial had been under way, one of the commissioners who made the appraisement testified in behalf of the highway commission as to the fair market value of the land taken and the damages to the remainder. During his cross-examination he was asked and permitted to testify about the amount of the award. The highway commission objected to this and the objection was overruled. The commission urges here that this was error. The evidence should not have been admitted. The amount of the award made by the commissioners in a condemnation case is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas Turnpike Project, In re
...do not bring to the district court as a matter of substantive law a single action to be tried as such. 3. Following Searcy v. State Highway Comm., 145 Kan. 709, 67 P.2d 534, the question of the extent to which cross-examination of a witness to impeach his credibility will be allowed is one ......
-
Hudson v. City of Shawnee
...appraiser. McCall Service Stations, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 390, 401, 524 P.2d 1165 (1974); Searcy v. State Highway Comm., 145 Kan. 709, 67 P.2d 534 (1937). Otherwise, the jury could conclude the court-appointed appraisers' testimony is entitled to more credence that the oth......
-
Hudson v. City of Shawnee
...appraiser. McCall Service Stations, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 390, 401, 524 P.2d 1165 (1974); Searcy v. State Highway Comm., 145 Kan. 709, 67 P.2d 534 (1937). Otherwise, the jury could conclude the court-appointed appraisers' testimony is entitled to more credence that the oth......
-
United States v. Kansas City, Kan.
...N. W. R. Co. v. Schmuck, et al., 79 Kan. 545, 100 P. 282; Chicago K. & N. R. Co. v. Broquet, 47 Kan. 571, 28 P. 717; Searcy v. State Highway Comm., 145 Kan. 709, 67 P.2d 534. All issues and rulings were as much before the court after appeal as before. Thus the final judgment upon trial de n......