State v. Hines
| Decision Date | 16 January 1975 |
| Citation | 306 So.2d 259,293 Ala. 509 |
| Parties | The STATE of Alabama v. John A. HINES, Jr., and Carol Hines. S.C. 697. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ralph E. Coleman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Birmingham, for the State, appellant.
Frank Ellis, Jr., and Conrad M. Fowler, Jr., Columbiana, for appellees.
This is an appeal by the State of Alabama from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County in a condemnation proceeding instituted by the State against certain lands belonging to John A. Hines, Jr., and Carol Hines. By stipulation of the parties, it was agreed with the date of the taking was February 19, 1973, and that the State of Alabama had the right to condemn. Therefore, the sole issue to be tried by the jury was the measure of damages due the property owners.
The jury returned a verdict against the State of Alabama, and assessed the amount of compensation due to the property owners at $140,000 as of the date of taking, i.e., 19 February 1973. The judgment recites that it being shown to the court that the State of Alabama had deposited with the Judge of Probate of Shelby County, Alabama, the sum of $129,100 as damages and compensation for the land taken, which sum had been transferred to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Shelby County it was ordered and adjudged by the court that the State of Alabama pay an additional sum of $10,900, and 'in accordance with the stipulation of the parties made in open court's interest in the amount of $6,696.61 on the judgment of $140,000, being at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 19 February 1973, to 6 December 1973, the date of the decree, as damages and compensation for the land taken and condemned. Costs were assessed against the State.
The State filed a motion for a new trial, some of the grounds of which asserted the excessiveness of the damages awarded. The motion for a new trial was overruled by the court.
However, on this appeal the State has not assigned as error the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial, and its assignments of error relate only the court's instructions to the jury, rulings as to admission or rejection of evidence, and rulings during the argument of counsel to the jury.
Since on this appeal the State has not by any assignments of error questioned the amount of damages awarded, our consideration on this appeal is squarely within the rule again enunciated in the fairly recent case of Mims v. Mississippi Power Company, 282 Ala. 90, 209...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Long
...Edmunds, 280 Ala. 247, 192 So.2d 451. . . ." State v. Ward, supra, 293 Ala. at 519, 306 So.2d at 267 (1975). See also State v. Hines, 293 Ala. 509, 306 So.2d 259 (1975); State v. Pugh, 293 Ala. 593, 308 So.2d 248 The only way to get the question of an excessive or inadequate verdict before ......
-
State v. Pugh
...cannot work a reversal.' (Citations omitted.) This same point was upheld very recently in the case of State of Alabama v. Hines, 293 Ala. 509, 306 So.2d 259 (Jan. 16, 1975), and in State of Alabama v. Ward, 293 Ala. 516, 306 So.2d 265 (January 9, Affirmed. BLOODWORTH, JONES, ALMON, and EMBR......