Shelby County v. Hatfield
Decision Date | 21 June 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 88-A,7 Div. 318,88-A |
Citation | 264 Ala. 488,88 So.2d 842 |
Parties | SHELBY COUNTY v. O. A. HATFIELD et al. (Tract). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Handy Ellis, Columbiana, for appellant.
Karl C. Harrison, and Wales W. Wallace, Jr., Columbiana, for appellees.
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County fixing appellees' damages and compensation in a condemnation proceeding at $3,500.
On March 5, 1954, Shelby County filed a petition in the Probate Court of that county to condemn lands of appellees for highway purposes. From the final order of condemnation in the Probate Court, the appellees appealed to Circuit Court and demanded a jury. After verdict and judgment in favor of the appellees, appellant filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled and Shelby County prosecuted this appeal.
There are twenty-three assignments of error. Numbers 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are not mentioned in brief and are not considered; Supreme Court Rule 9, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix. Appellees strenuously insist that appellant's brief does not comply with other provisions of Rule 9. The 'Statement of the Case' is adequate, but the purported 'Statement of the Facts' makes no reference 'to the pages of the transcript' as required by the rule. The 'Propositions of Law' are five general propositions and comply with the rule, but no specific application to the rulings assigned for error is made in brief, and no authority is ever mentioned or cited in the 'Argument' section of the brief in support of any assignment of error. Where there is no citation of, or reference to, an authority in the argument pertaining to any assignment, we think the argument does not "reach the dignity of an insistence upon the grounds of error covering it." Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 69 So. 604, 607; Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449, 71 So.2d 49, 43 A.L.R.2d 465; 2 A Alabama Digest Appeal and Error k756, 758(1) and 1079. Although Appellant's brief does not conform with Rule 9, we can, in our discretion, consider some of the assignments of error insisted on in brief; Simmons v. Cochran, 252 Ala. 461, 41 So.2d 579, and we exercise that discretion, because most of the assignments are concerned with requested written charges.
Assignments of error 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 14 are based upon the refusal of certain requested written charges. All of these charges instructed the jury that the fact adjacent lots may have been filled in with dirt or rock, or that water was caused to flow onto appellees' land, 'cannot be considered by you.' But appellant requested, and the court gave, a written instruction (charge A-1) that the jury should consider the fill and the water. This latter charge was inconsistent and in conflict with the eight refused charges. The appellant, having invoked the ruling of the court in giving charge A-1, will not be heard to complain that the court refused to give written charges inconsistent therewith. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Griffith, 161 Ala. 241, 50 So. 91. Moreover, some of these charges were properly refused because they were not predicated on the evidence. Walls v. Decatur Fertilizer Co., 215 Ala. 426, 111 So. 214; Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Nelson, 216 Ala. 149, 112 So. 422; Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Branton, 218 Ala. 464, 118 So. 741; Hammond Motor Co. v. Acker, 219 Ala. 291, 122 So. 173.
Assignment of error 6 is based upon the refusal of charge 6. This charge is elliptical, in that there is no subject for the predicate, and reversible error will not be predicated on its refusal. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Gay, 217 Ala. 543, 117 So. 78; Jones, Alabama Jury Instructions Sec. 281.
Assignments of error 15, 16 and 18 relate to exceptions taken to parts of the oral charge of the court. The statements of the court were to the effect that in estimating the damages, the jury may take into consideration the acreage or amount and value of the land taken for the right of way. Appellant's discussion of assignment of error 15 includes the following:
'It has been held by this court that where a part of a tract of land is taken for public road purposes, the jury cannot assess damages for the property actually taken, but the true test is the difference between the reasonable market value of the land before taking and at the completion of the work.'
No authority is cited, but, based on the argument, appellant's fifth proposition of law probably is directed at this contention. That proposition is:
Each of the cases cited contain this statement:
Each case cites in support of the statement, several cases including the cases from which we now quote. In Pickens County v. Jordan, 239 Ala. 589, 196 So. 121, 123, this court said:
'As to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brittain v. Ingram
...Court Rule 9, Revised Rules, supra. See Burch v. Southeastern Sand and Gravel Co., 278 Ala. 504, 179 So.2d 83; Shelby County v. Hatfield, 264 Ala. 488, 88 So.2d 842. This court has held that the Supreme Court Rules are directory and not jurisdictional and can therefore exercise its discreti......
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Weems
...Hospital v. Branton, 218 Ala. 464, 468, 118 So. 741; Hammond Motor Co. v. Acker, 219 Ala. 291, 292, 122 So. 173; Shelby County v. Hatfield, 264 Ala. 488, 490, 88 So.2d 842. Charge 4, in effect, is an affirmative charge for the defendant. That is to say, any inference or presumption to be in......
-
Leonard v. Meadows
... ... This appeal is taken from a decree of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in Equity, sustaining the demurrer of Lela Small, individually and as executrix of the will of ... ...
-
Zanaty v. Hagerty
... ... This is an appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in Equity ... At the outset, appellees insist upon their motion to dismiss or ... 614, 87 So. 97; Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449, 71 So.2d 49, 43 A.L.R.2d 465; Shelby County v. Hatfield, ... 264 Ala. 488, 88 So.2d 842; Reynolds v. Henson, 275 Ala. 435, 155 So.2d ... ...