State v. Young
| Decision Date | 05 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 89 |
| Citation | 279 Ala. 426,186 So.2d 140 |
| Parties | STATE of Alabama v. Ida Belle YOUNG. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Frank J. Mizell, Jr., and Maury D. Smith, Montgomery, for appellant.
Ball & Ball and Harry Cole, Montgomery, for appellee.
The State of Alabama filed a petition in the Probate Court of Montgomery County to condemn lands of Ida Belle Young for highway purposes.
The award of the commissioners in the Probate Court was $160,000 and a judgment of condemnation was entered accordingly.
The State took an appeal to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, 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 property owner, Ida Belle Young, in the sum of $115,000. Judgment was entered accordingly and the State's motion for a new trial was overruled. The State has appealed to this court.
The State argues several assignments of error which are to the effect that the trial court erred in giving at the request of the appellee, the landowner, certain written charges which relate to the measure of damages. The State also argues assignments of error which challenge the action of the trial court in refusing certain written charges requested by the State, which charges also relate to the measure of damages. The State further argues assignments of error asserting error on the part of the trial court in overruling objections interposed by the State to questions which elicited testimony which bore on the measure of damages.
Yet the State does not contend that the amount of the verdict was excessive. There is an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in overruling the State's motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial did not contain a ground asserting that the verdict of the jury was excessive. It did contain grounds to the effect that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence and was not sustained by the evidence. But those grounds are not argued, even if it could be assumed that they are sufficient in a case of this kind to raise the question of the excessiveness of the verdict.
In State v. Dunlap et al., Ala., 186 So.2d 132, we reaffirmed our holding in State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728, decided in 1960, which holding is to the effect that where the State appealed in a condemnation case and complained of parts of the oral charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Long
...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, 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, In......
-
Mims v. Mississippi Power Co.
...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, 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, In......
-
Cooper v. Watts
...argument of the question of excessiveness of the verdict. State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132, 133, supra; State v. Young, 279 Ala. 426, 186 So.2d 140, 141; Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Hendrix, 215 Ala. 285, 288--289, 110 So. 312, Appellant has petitioned this court to order the Unit......
-
Standard Oil Co. v. State
...447 (1967); State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132 (1966); State v. Jackson, 279 Ala. 425, 186 So.2d 139 (1966); State v. Young, 279 Ala. 426, 186 So.2d 140 (1966); State v. LeCroy, 279 Ala. 428, 186 So.2d 142 (1966); State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728 On first impression......