State v. Tibbles
| Decision Date | 17 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 29161,29161 |
| Citation | 123 N.E.2d 170,234 Ind. 47 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant, v. Raymond TIBBLES and Helen A. Tibbles, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Connor D. Ross, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Ramon S. Perry and Dalton C. McAlister, Fort Wayne, for appellees.
The State of Indiana filed this action in the Superior Court of Allen County to acquire for highway purposes, by condemnation, a certain strip of land owned by appellees and fronting on United States Roads 30 and 24 east of and near the city limits of Fort Wayne, Indiana. The case was tried on venue to the Wells Circuit Court. The defendants-appellees were awarded the sum of $5,000 as compensation for damages for the taking and appropriating of such parcel of land.
The sole error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. This motion contains 15 specifications or causes for a new trial. However, because of the result which we have reached, it is necessary to consider only specification 4, which is as follows:
'(4) The Court erred in admitting in evidence, over Plaintiff's objection, in the redirect examination of defendants' witness Raymond Tibbles the following stated question and answer:
'Q. 'Mr. Tibbles, I will ask you if at any time since you have owned this trailer park you intended using this space for the display and sale of trailers?'
'Objection by State's counsel: The State of Indiana objects to the question for the reason it is purely speculative.
'By the Court: Objection overruled.
'A. 'Yes."
It has long been the established rule that in determining the value of property taken by condemnation or appropriation the availability and adaptability of property for uses other than that to which it is applied at the time of taking, so far as it may appear from the evidence, may be taken into consideration, but inquiry as to damages cannot go into an intended specific use. Goodwine v. Evans, 1893, 134 Ind. 262, 264, 33 N.E. 1031; Alberson Cemetery Ass'n v. Fuhrer, 1923, 192 Ind. 606, 613, 137 N.E. 545; State v. Hamer, 1937, 211 Ind. 570, 576-578, 199 N.E. 589; Halstead v. Vandalia R. Co., 1911, 48 Ind.App. 96, 100, 95 N.E. 439; United States v. Honolulu Plantation Co., 1903, 9 Cir., 122 F. 581, 585; Five Tracts of Land v. United States, 1900, 3 Cir., 101 F. 661, 664; Thornton v. City of Birmingham, 1948, 250 Ala. 651, 35 So.2d 545, 547, 7 A.L.R.2d 773; Alabama Cent. R. Co. v. Musgrove, 1910, 169 Ala. 424, 53 So. 1009, 1010; People v. La Macchia, 1953, 41 Cal.2d 738, 264 P.2d 15; Old Silver Beach Corp. v. Town of Falmouth, 1929, 266 Mass. 224, 165 N.E. 1; Meisel Press Mfg. Co. v. City of Boston, 1930, 272 Mass. 372, 172 N.E. 356; Schulz v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation Dist., 1940, 138 Neb. 529, 293 N.W. 409; Graham & Co. Inc., v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 1943, 347 Pa. 622, 33 A.2d 22; Munkwitz v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 1885, 64 Wis. 403, 25 N.W. 438, 439.
Goodwine v. Evans, 1893, 134 Ind. 262, 33 N.E. 1031, supra, was an action to recover damages occasioned by the establishment of a public highway. In considering the evidence offered to prove that the appellant contemplated converting a portion of his farm, at some time in the future, into a stock farm, this court, 134 Ind. at page 264, 33 N.E. at page 1032, said:
'The appellant offered to prove that he contemplated converting a portion of his farm, at some time in the future, into a stock or grazing farm, but the court sustained an objection to this offered evidence.
'There was no error in this ruling.
A question similar to that raised by appellant's specification 4 was again before this court in Alberson Cemetery Ass'n v. Fuhrer, 1923, 192 Ind. 606, 137 N.E. 545, supra. This was an action to recover damages resulting from the appropriation of land for the extension of an existing cemetery. At page 613 of 192 Ind....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bishop, 32S01-0302-CV-72.
...evidence, may be taken into consideration, but inquiry as to damages cannot go into an intended specific use. State v. Tibbles, 234 Ind. 47, 49, 123 N.E.2d 170, 170 (Ind.1954) (citations omitted). It follows that billboards on condemned property are compensable to the extent that they enhan......
-
City of Indianapolis on Behalf of Dept. of Metropolitan Development v. Heeter
...devoted to such use at the time of taking. The rule governing the adaptability factor was succinctly stated in State v. Tibbles (1954), 234 Ind. 47, 49, 123 N.E.2d 170, 171: 'It has long been the established rule that in determining the value of property taken by condemnation or appropriati......
-
City of Lafayette v. Beeler
...land could be sold if the owner were willing to sell and a buyer willing to buy, neither under compulsion to do so. State v. Tibbles (1954) 234 Ind. 47, 123 N.E.2d 170. Furthermore, if the land has a higher market value by reason of use or uses to which it may be adapted, but to which it ha......
-
State ex rel. Dept. of Highways v. Nevada Aggregates & Asphalt Co.
...the owner has been prohibited from putting his property to some intended use by reason of its condemnation. See, e.g., State v. Tibbles, 234 Ind. 47, 123 N.E.2d 170 (1954). Quite understandably, in the absence of such evidence, such damages are considered too speculative to provide a reason......