State v. Peinhardt
| Decision Date | 24 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 498 |
| Citation | 120 So.2d 728,270 Ala. 627 |
| Parties | STATE of Alabama v. Carl A. PEINHARDT et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Julian Harris, Decatur, for appellant.
Bland & Bland, Cullman, for appellees.
The State of Alabama filed a petition in the Probate Court of Cullman County to condemn lands belonging to Carl A. Peinhardt for highway purposes.
The award of the commissioners in the Probate Court was $20,524.25 and judgment of condemnation was entered accordingly.
The State took an appeal to the Circuit Court, where no issue was made as to the right of the State to condemn the property in question. The sole issue was the amount of damages to be awarded the property owner.
In the Circuit Court the trial was before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the landowner in the sum of $21,666. Judgment was entered accordingly and the State's motion for a new trial was overruled. The State has appealed to this court.
The State does not here complain that the amount of the verdict was excessive or that the verdict was contrary to the evidence or was the result of bias or prejudice. There is an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in overruling the State's motion for a new trial, but the grounds of the motion taking the point that the verdict was excessive or that it was contrary to the weight of the evidence are not argued in brief.
The argued assignments of error relate to the court's oral charge and a written charge given at the request of the landowner.
The parts of the oral charge of which complaint is made and the written charge relate to the method of computing compensation. Error, if any, in the giving of such instructions cannot work a reversal since the State has not complained specifically that the compensation awarded was excessive. Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Hendrix, 215 Ala. 285, 110 So. 312; Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Higginbotham, 232 Ala. 235, 167 So. 259.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunlap
...are not argued in brief. Although it is not relied upon in brief of appellees, we must give consideration to our case of State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728, wherein we held that where the State appealed and parts of the oral charge and a written charge of which complaint was ma......
-
State v. Long
...279 Ala. 425, 186 So.2d 139; State v. Young, 279 Ala. 426, 186 So.2d 140; State v. Graf, 280 Ala. 71, 189 So.2d 912; State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728; State v. East Woodland Hills, Inc., 281 Ala. 430, 203 So.2d "For other cases to like effect see Alabama v. Ferguson, supra (2......
-
Southern Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Mobile County
...a reversal where the landowner-appellant had not complained specifically that the compensation awarded was inadequate. State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728; Fallaw v. Flowers, 274 Ala. 151, 146 So.2d 306; State of Alabama v. Ferguson, 269 Ala. 44, 110 So.2d In State v. Peinhardt,......
-
Mims v. Mississippi Power Co.
...279 Ala. 425, 186 So.2d 139; State v. Young, 279 Ala. 426, 186 So.2d 140; State v. Graf, 280 Ala. 71, 189 So.2d 912; State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728; State v. East Woodland Hills, Inc., (Ala.) 203 So.2d For other cases to like effect see Alabama v. Ferguson, supra; Cooper v.......