United States v. Dillman, 11141.
Decision Date | 10 April 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 11141.,11141. |
Citation | 146 F.2d 572 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. DILLMAN et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Billingsley Hill and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Attys., Department of Justice, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Roy Sansing, of Higgins, Tex., and H. H. Cooper, John R. Fullingim, and Grady Hazlewood, all of Amarillo, Tex., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
On March 21, 1942, the United States sought by condemnation proceedings to acquire title to 15,000 acres of land together with improvements and growing crops thereon in Carson County, Texas, for the establishment of the Pantex Ordnance plant. On July 1, 1942, a declaration of taking was filed and the sum of $452,763.00 was deposited with the court as estimated just compensation for the thirty-seven tracts of land and for the improvements thereon. The portion of the deposit allocated to the thirty-one tracts involved in this appeal totaled $429,263.00.
As provided by the Texas statutes, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.Tex. art. 3264, three commissioners were appointed by the District Court to hold hearings and to value the properties. Thereafter they returned awards of just compensation for all thirty-seven tracts. Objections to their awards totaling $665,566.49 for the thirty-one tracts here involved were filed by the United States and by numerous land owners. As a result, a trial de novo as to those tracts was held in July and August of 1943. A jury was waived by agreement of the parties.
Judgment in accordance with the opinion in the total sum of $783,907.73 for the thirty-one tracts was entered November 18, 1943.
Much evidence was adduced and offered both for the Government and for the defendants. It has covered a wide range. The record contains six volumes with an aggregate of more than 2300 pages.
The opinion of the court, which is a finding of facts and conclusions of law, covers more than one hundred pages. We quote the following excerpt from this opinion:
* * *."
It is not necessary to decide whether it was error or not for the trial judge to go out and inspect the lands, since counsel for the Government invited him to make such inspection. It was prejudicial error, however, to take with him the police sergeant who, it is alleged, was acquainted with the topography of the lands, and who gave to him information about the lands as they moved over them on inspection.
We have no way of knowing just how accurate this police sergeant was in his explanations to the trial judge wherein he pointed out the high and low places in the lands and informed him how such places were made, whether they had been dug or filled in or were natural. Suppose on a rigid cross-examination it was found that the police sergeant had made a mistake in some of his findings; just what effect would it have had on the finding and decree of the trial judge? We will never know. Were the lands in the same condition as they were when inspected by the witnesses testifying in this case? We will never know. The testimony of the many witnesses as to slopes, grass and lakes and their size and value was possibly sharply contradicted by this police sergeant in the information which he gave. It was information obtained completely outside the record and we are not permitted to know what weight it had with the trial judge.
"What influence the evidence taken outside the hearing, proper or improper, may have had upon the conclusion reached by the commissioner (the trial judge here), or what counter effect cross-examination or rebuttal testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. DeLoache, Civ. A. No. 67-722.
...the intestate, he approached Mrs. Hulsey and told her he had a buyer for the filling station lot at $85,000. See, United States v. Dillman (C.C.A.Tex.1944) 146 F.2d 572, 575. It developed during his examination, though, that he was not in a position to make a firm offer; what he sought was ......
-
Sands v. Wainwright
...L.Ed. 467 (1955); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 1166, 1 L.Ed.2d 1347 (1950); United States v. Dillman, 146 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir. 1944); Commissioner v. West Production Co., 121 F.2d 9, 11 (5th Cir. 1941); cf. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 413-414, 1......
-
United States v. An Easement & Right-of-way Over 6.09 Acres of Land
...& Imp. Co., 160 F.2d 131, 136 (5th Cir.1947) ; St. Joe Paper Co. v. United States, 155 F.2d 93, 98 (5th Cir.1946) ; United States v. Dillman, 146 F.2d 572, 575 (5th Cir.1944) ; Certain Parcels of Land in Rapides Parish, La., 149 F.2d at 82 n. 4. Further, that court has indicated that such o......
-
University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp.
...v. United States, 294 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1961); Bank of Edenton v. United States, 152 F.2d 251 (4th Cir. 1945); United States v. Dillman, 146 F.2d 572 (5th Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 870, 65 S.Ct. 1409, 89 L.Ed. 1989 (1945); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. United States, 132 F.2d 959 ......