State Highway Comm'n v. Zyk

• Decision Date: 30 November 1928
• Docket Number: No. 156,156
• Citation: 144 A. 8
• Parties: STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. ZYK et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

144 A. 8

STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION

v. ZYK et al.

No. 156

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 30, 1928.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Condemnation proceedings by the State Highway Commission against John Zyk and another. From judgment for a certain amount as damages, landowners appeal. Affirmed.

Darling, Barnes & Dowden, of Jersey City, for appellants.

Mark Sullivan, of Jersey City, for respondent.

KALISCH, J. This is an appeal by the appellants from a judgment of $2,200 entered in the Hudson county circuit court upon the verdict of a jury, in their favor, against the State Highway Commission, in a condemnation proceeding instituted by the latter, the respondent here.

The record discloses that commissioners were appointed to fix the value of the land of the appellants and to make an award for damages. The State Highway Commission, being dissatisfied with the award of the commissioners, appealed to the Hudson county circuit court, the outcome of which appeal was the verdict as above stated. The appellants, in turn, being dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury, are appealing to this court.

The respondent urges that the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the grounds of appeal do not set forth the particular errors relied on for a reversal of the judgment under review.

The grounds of appeal relied on by appellants are stated as follows: (1) The circuit court admitted, over objection of counsel for appellants, testimony establishing the purpose for which the lands of the appellants was acquired. (2) The circuit court admitted, over objection of counsel for appellants, testimony showing the character of the road to be constructed on the land acquired from appellants. (3) The circuit court admitted, over objection of counsel for appellants, a cross-section of blueprint showing the construction of the road to be constructed on the land acquired from appellants. (4) The circuit court admitted, over objection of counsel for appellants, testimony explaining the said cross-section blueprint so erroneously admitted. (5) The circuit court erred in refusing to strike out the testimony explaining the said cross-section blueprint. (6) The circuit court admitted, over objection of counsel for appellants, testimony showing the condition of the road at a point far removed from the land acquired from appellants. (7) The circuit court admitted, over objection of counsel for appellants, testimony tending to establish benefits to be derived by appellants from the road to be constructed by respondent. (8) The circuit court refused to permit counsel for appellants to cross-examine the respondent's expert witnesses as to their knowledge of property values in the vicinity of the land acquired from appellants. (9) The verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence offered in this matter.

It is manifest from a reading of these grounds of appeal that none of them point out the particular error which is claimed was made by the trial judge. The grounds of appeal are infected with the same vice as existed in the grounds of appeal set forth in the case of Bowen v. State Highway Commission, 135 A. 340, 341, 5 N. J. Misc. R. 10, where the Supreme Court, in commenting upon the grounds of appeal presented in that case, said: "None of the four grounds discloses the testimony alleged to have been illegally admitted and the fifth does not set forth the testimony illegally rejected. This method of presenting issues of law arising out of the admission or rejection of evidence is contrary to the...