State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Vaught
| Decision Date | 14 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 51574,No. 2,51574,2 |
| Citation | 400 S.W.2d 153 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, Appellant, v. W. J. VAUGHT et al. On Exceptions of John D. Dukewits et al., Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert L. Hyder, Wm. T. Powers, Springfield, for appellant.
Neale, Newman, Bradshaw, Freeman & Neale, Springfield, Thom G. Field, Flavius B. Freeman, Springfield, for respondents.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
In this action for condemnation of land for highway purposes the jury rendered a verdict of 'no damages.' The landowners' motion for new trial was sustained and the Highway Commission has appealed. The difference between the award and that to which defendant-landowners claim they are entitled under their evidence exceeds $15,000, and for that reason appellate jurisdiction is in this court.
The order of the trial court granting a new trial to landowners was as follows: 'Now on this day it is ordered by the Court that the defendants' motion for a new trial be and is hereby sustained for the reasons that the Court abused its discretion in allowing Commissioners Riebold and Wann to testify as witnesses and also on the grounds that the verdict is against the greater weight of the credible evidence in this cause.'
Appellant's points on this appeal are somewhat related, and for that reason we will set all of them out at this time. They are that the trial court erred in granting a new trial because (1) 'the stated ground that the Court abused its discretion in allowing Commissioners Riebold and Wann to testify as witnesses * * * is not discretionary, and the law is well settled that commissioners may be used as witnesses by either party in a condemnation case' with certain restrictions, none of which were violated; (2) the 'discretionary ground (that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence) depends on and is supported by the nondiscretionary ground (that the court abused its discretion in allowing Commissioners Riebold and Wann to testify) (and) the appellate courts will not assume that the trial court gave a discretionary ground for a new trial unless it is clearly stated as a separate ground and is in fact a discretionary ground;' and (3) the respondents 'did not present any substantial evidence to support the trial court's order.' There is then added the contention that the court erred in overruling appellant's objection to 'specific testimony' of certain witnesses and refusing to strike the 'entire testimony' of one witness. The inference is that without this testimony there was insufficient basis for the trial court's ruling that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence.
We cannot agree that in its order the trial court gave but one ground for granting a new trial, and that a nondiscretionary one. The order by which a new trial is granted is 'the sole and only official repository for the court's thoughts or reasons.' Sawyer v. Winterholder, Mo., 195 S.W.2d 659; Bierman v. Langston, Mo., 304 S.W.2d 865. See also Civil Rules 75.01 and 78.01, V.A.M.R. The order in this case is in clear and unambiguous language, and it clearly sets forth two reasons or grounds, the second of which is that the verdict was against the greater weight of the credible evidence. We cannot go behind what is clearly expressed in the order, surmise as to what may or may not have motivated the order, and then conclude that what the trial court really meant to say, but did not, was that without the testimony of witnesses Riebold and Wann the verdict was against the greater weight of the credible evidence.
Appellant next contends, as we understand its third point, that even though it be determined that two separate grounds for ordering a new trial were given by the trial court in its order, it abused its discretion in ordering a new trial on the discretionary ground that the verdict of 'no damages' was against the greater weight of the credible evidence because respondents did not present any substantial evidence that by the appropriation they were damaged in any amount, or in an amount greater than the special benefits.
Respondents were the owners of a tract of land consisting of 2.73 acres which admittedly was adapted for commercial use. The State appropriated by condemnation 0.62 acre for highway purposes. Respondent presented three expert witnesses who unquestionably were qualified and who testified that in their opinion the appropriation resulted in a net damage to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Badahman v. Catering St. Louis
...Clark v. Ford, 498 S.W.2d 803, 805 (Mo. 1973); Phillips v. Phillips, 443 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Mo. banc 1969); State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Vaught, 400 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Mo. 1966); Burnett v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 337 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. 1960). The rationale that supports applying th......
-
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of City of Joplin v. Joplin Union Depot Co.
...304 S.W.2d 865, 867(5). Being invested with no right to 'go behind what is clearly expressed in the order' (State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Vaught, Mo., 400 S.W.2d 153, 154), we accept it at face value as having granted a new trial on the sole specified ground that the verdict was aga......
-
Day v. Mayberry
...there was substantial evidence to have supported a verdict for the party to whom the new trial was granted. State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Vaught, Mo., 400 S.W.2d 153, 155; Robinson v. Wampler, Mo., 389 S.W.2d 757, 759(2, 3); Dawson v. Scherff, Mo., 281 S.W.2d 825, 831; Williams v. C......
-
Dick v. Children's Mercy Hosp.
...just indicates the respondents thought that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Neither State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Vaught, 400 S.W.2d 153 (Mo.1966), nor Davis v. Perkins, 512 S.W.2d 868 (Mo.App.1974), help the respondent. In both cases, the trial court clearly......