State v. LeCroy, 3 Div. 88
Decision Date | 05 May 1966 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 88 |
Citation | 279 Ala. 428,186 So.2d 142 |
Parties | STATE of Alabama v. Geraldine W. LeCROY et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Frank J. Mizell, Jr., and Goodwyn & Smith, Montgomery, for appellant.
Hill, Hill, Stovall & Carter, Montgomery, for appellees.
This is an eminent domain proceeding brought by the State (Code 1940, Tit. 19, Chap. 1) to acquire rights-of-way for highway purposes across lands belonging to appellees. The proceeding originated in the probate court of Montgomery County, where there was an award of $200,000. From the order of condemnation there made, the State appealed to the circuit court of the county, where a trial de novo (§ 17, Tit. 19) was had before a jury. The sole issue on the trial was the amount of damages and compensation, if any, to be awarded the landowners. The jury fixed the amount at $135,000. A judgment of condemnation followed. Thereupon, the State filed a motion for a new trial. The motion was overruled. The State then brought this appeal from the judgment of condemnation and also from the judgment overruling its motion for a new trial.
The State took physical possession of the condemned property prior to the trial in the circuit court.
All of the assignments of error relate to, and have a bearing only upon, the amount to be awarded the landowners. But the amount of the award was not questioned in the trial court (in the motion for a new trial or otherwise), nor is it questioned here. Accordingly, error, if there be error in any of the challenged rulings, is rendered harmless and cannot work a reversal. See: State v. Dunlap et al, Ala., 186 So.2d 132, and cases there cited.
The landowners insist they should be allowed interest on the judgment of condemnation, particularly since the State took physical possession of the condemned property prior to the trial in the circuit court and has continued in possession. They make the following argument in their brief:
'* * * We respectfully submit that interest on an award after the State has entered and is using a landowner's property is necessary to make up
This argument pointedly brings to the fore once again the need for revising some of the provisions of the eminent domain statutes.
In Southern Electric Generating Company v. Lance, 269 Ala. 25, 34, 110 So.2d 627, it was held that interest on a judgment of condemnation cannot be allowed on an appeal from such judgment. As there said:
In the opinion, we observed that we would prefer to award interest, but 'must await authority from the Legislature before doing so.'
A condition to the right of a condemnor to take possession of land being condemned is the deposit in court of the amount of the award. Code 1940, Tit. 19, §§ 18, 24. But no interest accrues on the deposit. Nor may it be withdrawn by the landowner. See: Ex parte Lance, 267 Ala. 639, 103 So.2d 753. True, the condemnor has had to deposit the award in court in order to take possession, and thus has lost the use of the deposited money. But the landowner has neither the use of the land nor the use of the deposited money. A condemnor in possession, by taking an appeal from the judgment of condemnation, thereby causes the award to be withheld from the landowner pending the determination of the appeal. If...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Long
...jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal with damages and compensation, cannot work a reversal. -- State v. LeCroy, 279 Ala. 428, 186 So.2d 142; State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132; State v. Jackson, 279 Ala. 425, 186 So.2d 139; State v. Young, 279 Ala. 426,......
-
Williams v. Alabama Power Co.
...Newton, 448 So.2d 384 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Southern Elec. Generating Co. v. Lance, 269 Ala. 25, 110 So.2d 627 (1959); State v. LeCroy, 279 Ala. 428, 186 So.2d 142 (1966); and State v. Moore, 269 Ala. 20, 110 So.2d 635 (1959). However, the prejudgment-interest portion of a condemnation award,......
-
Mims v. Mississippi Power Co.
...jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal with damages and compensation, cannot work a reversal.--State v. LeCroy, 279 Ala. 428, 186 So.2d 142; State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132; State v. Jackson, 279 Ala. 425, 186 So.2d 139; State v. Young, 279 Ala. 426, 1......
-
Cooper v. Watts
...and Nashville Railroad Company v. Lynch, 279 Ala. 461, 186 So.2d 921; State v. Jackson, 279 Ala. 425, 186 So.2d 139; State v. LeCroy, 279 Ala. 428, 186 So.2d 142; State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728; Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Higginbotham, 232 Ala. 235, 167 So. 259; Birmingh......