State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Wright
| Decision Date | 14 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 46047,46047,1 |
| Citation | 312 S.W.2d 70 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, Appellant, v. Frank H. WRIGHT et al., Exceptions of James R. Knapp and Ruth M. Knapp, Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert L. Hyder, Bruce A. Ring, Jefferson City, for appellant.
Claude T. Wood, Richland, Dillard & Grossenheider, by Paul J. Dillard, Lebanon, A. Ronald Stewart, Springfield, for respondents.
The issue in this case is the question of damages in a condemnation case wherein land on which was located a motel owned and operated by James R. Knapp and Ruth M. Knapp was taken by the State Highway Commission for the purpose of constructing a limited access highway. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Clevenger, 365 Mo. 970, 291 S.W.2d 57; State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. James, 356 Mo. 1161, 205 S.W.2d 534. The motel was located at Hazelgreen, Missouri, which is about midway between Lebanon and Waynesville in Laclede County, Missouri. The Knapps owned about 49 acres of land. The land taken by condemnation was a strip 218 feet wide and slightly less than 1/4 mile in length. The Knapps' property consisted of a filling station, a cafe, and 8 buildings containing 14 motel units located north of old Highway 66. The old highway was on about the same level as the ground upon which the motel was located and there was convenient access from the roadway to the motel property. All of the ground upon which the motel and other buildings mentioned were located was taken, necessitating their removal. There remained a small residence north of the land taken for road purposes.
The condemnation suit was filed on November 4, 1954. Commissioners were appointed to assess damages and by their report the damages were assessed at $30,000. This amount was deposited in the office of the circuit clerk for the benefit of the landowners. The State Highway Commission and the Knapps each filed exceptions to the report. A trial by jury was had in October, 1956, and the jury assessed the damages at $50,000. From the judgment entered, the State Highway Commission appealed.
Since the State Highway Commission claims that $30,000 is excessive and the Knapps claim that $50,000 is not excessive, the amount in dispute is in excess of $7,500. Hence, appellate jurisdiction is in this court.
The main point briefed has to do with a change in the plans of the construction of the roadway with reference to the limited access to the property not taken for road purposes. The original plan contemplated access to Highway 66 at the extreme west end of the Knapp property. When the roadway was constructed, a side road was built along the north side of the main highway (that is, adjacent to Knapp property and parallel to said highway) from the west end of the property eastward to a point near which the motel had been located. This side road was built on property taken for road purposes.
The State Highway Commission asked the trial court for permission to amend its petition so as to reflect the changes in the plans. This was done before the jury was selected to try the case. On objection, the permission was refused. The case was tried on the theory that the side road was not in existence. The amendment offered reads as follows: '13.12 Relator will construct and maintain an outer roadway adjacent to Defendants' property and parallel with the thruway of said highway, which shall have a travel surface of 20 feet and shall extend from station 778+00 to station 786+00, to which outer roadway the abutting property owner shall have the usual right of ingress and egress.'
The Knapps, in their brief, say that 'The allowance or denial of an amendment to the pleadings in an action of eminent domain is a matter which lies largely within the trial court's discretion, the right to amend the petition is covered by rules of equity, and it would have been inequitable to allow the amendment in this case after the improvements had all been removed from respondent's property.'
There are two matters which when taken together make the ruling of the trial court on the question of the amendment important. The first is the topography of the portion of the property not taken for road purposes. The other is the evidence introduced by the Knapps as to the cost of constructing a roadway from the west line of their land (where the original plans contemplated the only access) eastward to a point north of where the motel had been located. The land not taken is of little value. It is rocky and rough. In fact, there is a ravine, 40 feet or more in depth, between the west line of the property and the point where the motel had been located so that the access at the west end of the property to the highway would have been of no use to the Knapps. The only building left on the property not taken was a small dwelling which was located a short distance north of where the motel once stood. This had been used as living quarters either for the Knapps of for their help at the motel. The side road constructed by the State Highway Commission is a convenient road for access to this dwelling which is located on the only level spot remaining on the property. It is agreed that even with the side road the property not taken is not worth more than $4,000. The witnesses for the Knapps placed the value at about $5 per acre or, in any event, not over $1,000.
Evidence was introduced on behalf of the Knapps, over the objection of the plaintiffappellant, that the construction of a roadway from the west end of their property eastwardly over the ravine to the level ground would cost approximately $48,000. Evidence was also introduced that a road could be constructed along the west line of the property northward toward the Gasconade River, thence eastward, and thence southward to the residence at a cost of about $65,000. This evidence was given by a civil engineer and the witness detailed minutely what would be necessary to construct a road.
The question before us is, did the trial court err in denying the State Highway Commission permission to amend its petition and in not trying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Morton v. Allison
...take in different and additional lands after assessment if it substantially affects the owner's rights. 9 In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Wright, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 70, 74, the court was careful to point out that 'it is also important that by the amendment the condemnor did not se......
-
State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n v. McCann
...657, 660 (Mo.App.1972); State ex rel. Morton v. Allison, 365 S.W.2d 563, 566[3, 5] (Mo. banc 1963); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Wright, 312 S.W.2d 70, 73 (Mo.1958). To deny the condemnor an amendment for such purpose can constitute an abuse of discretion. Joe D. Esther, Inc., ......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Choate
...its position such cases as Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. McGaughey Bros., 250 Ark. 1083, 468 S.W.2d 754 (1971); State Highway Comm. of Missouri v. Wright, 312 S.W.2d 70 (Mo.1958); and California Department of Public Works v. Chevalier, 52 Cal.2d 299, 340 P.2d 598 The first taking was accomp......
-
Jackson County v. Hall, KCD
...easement to reduce the damage occasioned by the condemnation, are analogous to the facts here. See also State ex rel. Highway Commission v. Wright, 312 S.W.2d 70, 73-74(3) (Mo.1958); Union Electric Co. v. Levin, 304 S.W.2d 478, 483 (Mo.App.1957); State ex rel. Morton v. Allison, 357 S.W.2d ......