United Fuel Gas Co. v. Mauk
| Decision Date | 12 June 1959 |
| Citation | 325 S.W.2d 339 |
| Parties | UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Willis MAUK, Appellee. UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Maurice HIENEMAN and Opal Hieneman, Appellees. UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Maurice HIENEMAN and Molly Hieneman, Appellees. UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Carl MAUK, Appellee. UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Herman WELLS, Appellee. UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Burbage CRIDER and Ida Crider, Appellees. UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. W. C. SHERMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
J. K. Wells, Paintsville, for appellant.
Oscar Sammons, Greenup, for appellees Willis Mauk and others.
Coldiron & Warnock, Greenup, for Burbage Crider and Ida Crider.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
This is the third appeal of these seven cases, which concern the award of damages in the condemnation of an easement for a gas pipeline across seven tracts of land. (Five of the cases are here on motion for an appeal.) On the first appeal, judgments awarding damages to the property owners were reversed for errors in the admission and rejection of evidence. See 272 S.W.2d 810, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817. On the second appeal, the judgments were reversed on the ground that the damages were excessive. See 302 S.W.2d 368. On the present appeal, the condemnor again asserts that the damages are excessive.
The following table shows the amounts awarded by the judgments on the second trial (which were reversed as being excessive), and the amounts awarded by the judgments on the third trial, which are now on appeal:
Second Third
Owner Trial Trial
----- ------ -----
W. Mauk $1,100 $1,600
M. Hieneman 1,800 1,700
M. & M. Hieneman 775 900
C. Mauk 1,500 2,300
H. Wells 1,175 1,650
B. Crider 1,500 2,800
W. Sherman 2,250 3,500
It will be observed that the amounts awarded on the third trial all exceed those awarded on the second trial, except that to M. Hieneman, which is $100 less.
We find no difference of any real substance between the evidence on the third trial and that on the second. Since we reversed the judgments on the second trial as being 'so excessive as to strike us as being unreasonable, and such as to show the jury was actuated by passion or partiality or by prejudice,' we would think it should have been obvious to the trial court, and to the appellees, that judgments in six of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com., Dept. of Highways v. Gearhart
...borne out by the proof from the very witnesses who gave them. We consider that the verdict is palpably excessive. Cf. United Fuel Gas Co. v. Mauk, Ky., 325 S.W.2d 339; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Mauk, Ky., 302 S.W.2d 368; Com., Dept. of Highways v. Lyons, Ky., 364 S.W.2d 336; Com., Dept. of Hig......
-
Com., Dept. of Highways v. Priest
...that the jury acted as the result of passion, partiality or prejudice. United Fuel Gas Co. v. Mauk, Ky., 302 S.W.2d 368; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Mauk, Ky., 325 S.W.2d 339; Com., Dept. of Highways v. Lyons, Ky., 364 S.W.2d 336; Com., Dept. of Highways v. Rankin, Ky., 346 S.W.2d 714; Com., Dep......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mattingly
...the second trial was clearly more positive and would have been sufficient to sustain the original verdict. Therefore, United Fuel Gas Co. v. Mauk, Ky.1959, 325 S.W.2d 339, does not apply. Preliminary, however, to the consideration of whether $62,331 is excessive we must again review the med......