Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Nilson
| Decision Date | 29 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 12331,12331 |
| Citation | 245 S.W.2d 727 |
| Parties | TENNESSEE GAS TRANSMISSION CO. v. NILSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Chas. C. Ingram, Jr., Wharton, Geo. P. Willis, El Campo, W. V. Ballew, Jr. and Wm. R. Brown, Houston (Ingram & Moore, Wharton, Baker, Botts, Andrews & Parish, Houston, of counsel), for appellant.
J. J. Duckett, El Campo, and W. James Kronzer, Jr., Houston (Duckett & Duckett, El Campo, and Hill, Kronzer & Abraham, Houston, of counsel), for appellees.
Plaintiff and condemnor, below, Appellant here, Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, instituted this action against Henrietta Nilson and Elmer Nilson, defendants and condemnees, below, Appellees here, to condemn a right-of-way or easement 30 feet in width and 2,894 feet in length, comprising approximately 1.99 acres of land, across two tracts of land (one containing 69.15 acres and the other 160 acres) owned by the defendants in Wharton County, Texas, for the purpose of constructing and operating a feeder pipeline for its natural gas transmission system.
On appeal to the County Court of Wharton County, Texas, the only issue was the difference in market value of the 1.99 acre tract comprising the right-of-way before and after the condemnation and the damages, if any, suffered because of the depreciation in value of the remainder of the defendants' property. Judgment was entered, based on a jury verdict, for the defendants in the total amount of $23,213.50. The plaintiff, Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, only excepted to this judgment, and perfected this appeal.
The trial court submitted what it conceived to be the controlling fact issues raised by the pleadings and evidence in four Special Issues to the jury, which, together with that body's answers thereto, were these:
'Special Issue No. 1.
'What do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, was the reasonable market value per acre of the 1.99 acres of land in the said right-of-way across the Nilson 69.15 and 160 acres tracts immediately before the same was condemned on the 14th day of November, 1949, and the construction of the gas pipeline thereon?
'To which the jury answered: $300.00 per acre.
'Special Issue No. 2.
'What do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, was the reasonable market value per acre of the 1.99 acres of land in said right-of-way across the Nilson 69.15 and 160 acres tracts of land immediately after the condemnation of the same on the 14th day of November, 1949, and the construction of the gas pipeline thereon?
'To which the jury answered: $50.00 per acre.
'Special Issue No. 3.
'What do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, was the reasonable market value per acre of the remaining acres of the Nilson 69.15 and 160 acres tracts, exclusive of the strip of 1.99 acres of land in the subject right-of-way, immediately before the condemnation of said strip on the 14th day of November, 1949, and the construction of the gas pipeline thereon?
'To which the jury answered: $300.00, per acre.
'Special Issue No. 4.
'Excluding increase in value, if any, and decrease in value, if any, by reason of benefits or injuries received by defendants in common with the community generally and not peculiar to them and connected with their ownership, use and enjoyment of the particular tracts of land across which the strip of land has been condemned, and taking into consideration the uses to which the strip condemned is to be subjected, what do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, was the reasonable market value per acre of the remaining acres of the Nilson 69.15 and 160 acres tracts, exclusive of the strip of 1.99 acres of land in the subject right-of-way, immediately after the condemnation of said strip on the 14th day of November, 1949, and the construction of the gas pipeline thereon.
'To which the jury answered: $200.00 per acre.'
In protest against the judgment so adverse to it below, appellant presents here four Points of Error, substantially to this effect:
First, there was no evidence to support the jury's answers to such Issues Nos. 3 and 4, because, first, it was impossible from the evidence as a whole to compute and arrive at the figures of $300.00 and $200.00, respectively, so found thereunder;
Second, the jury's verdict as a whole was so grossly excessive on its face as to establish that it was the product of passion and prejudice upon the jury's part;
Further, such verdict was shown to have been reached by majority vote among them and not by unanimous agreement of all of the jurors.
None of these presentments, it is determined, should be sustained, in the state of the record brought here, upon the appeal.
In the first place, because of the nature of the suit-it being a condemnation proceeding against the appellees' lands, in which the appellant was exercising its power of 'eminent domain' under the laws of the State-the evidence as to what was done must, by the courts, be reviewed most favorably to the appellees. Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 47, 51; Reeves v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 575, 580, writ of error refused, no reversible error; Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Hunt, Tex.Sup., 228 S.W.2d 151, 155, 156, affirming Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 128.
In the second place, as the maps in evidence make most plain, the narrow strip of land 30 feet in width by 2,894 feet in length (comprising 1.99 acres), cuts across two contiguous or actually adjoining tracts owned by the appellees, for the purpose of laying a 12-inch gas pipeline thereunder, such pipeline to cross both tracts, pictorially showing, as otherwise conclusively appeared from the evidence, that the entire 229.15 acres so owned by the appellees had been condemned, or at least burdened, as a unit, although only the small strip of 1.99 acres therefrom was actually appropriated, or taken.
In this setting, the quoted Special Issues appeared to have been submitted by the trial court, in the form approved by our Supreme Court, in State v. Carpenter, 126 Tex. 604, 89 S.W.2d 194, 979.
Neither is it shown that appellant made any objections to such submission of the Issues given and answered, nor did it present any request that the jury's consideration be limited to a determination of damages to less than the 229.15 acres the appellees so owned as a unit, and from which the 1.99 acre small easement was cut out. Texas Power & Light Co. v. Hill, Tex.Civ.App., 27...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Nilson
...of the tract was appealed by the condemnor and affirmed by the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals over the dissent of the Chief Justice. 245 S.W.2d 727. We granted error on the point that the verdict and judgment as to consequential damages had no support in the evidence and, following oral a......