Womble v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 41643
| Decision Date | 26 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41643,41643 |
| Citation | 123 So.2d 235,239 Miss. 372 |
| Parties | Robert L. WOMBLE and wife, Mrs. Hazel Ward Womble v. MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Breland & Whitten, Sumner, for appellant.
Murray L. Williams, Water Valley, Stone & Stone, Coffeeville, Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Matthew Harper, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an eminent domain suit instituted by the appellee, Mississippi State Highway Commission, against the appellants, Robert L. Womble and Mrs. Hazel Ward Womble, to acquire a portion of the lands of the appellants in Yalobusha County for highway right of way purposes in connection with the construction of Interstate Highway No. 55.
The trial in the special court of eminent domain resulted in an award to the appellants of the sum of $8,100. The Mississippi State Highway Commission appealed to the circuit court and the trial in the circuit court resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the landowners in the amount of $10,650. The Highway Commission filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds of claimed excessiveness of the verdict. On the hearing of the motion for a new trial the circuit judge found that the verdict was grossly excessive and ruled that unless the landowners entered a remittitur of $2,700, thus reducing the verdict to $7,950, the motion for a new trial would be sustained. The landowners declined to enter such remittitur and accordingly judgment was entered sustaining the motion for a new trial. From this judgment the landowners prosecute this appeal. The landowners were not represented by counsel in either the special court of eminent domain or in the circuit court.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for a new trial. The rule as universally announced in our decisions is that the action of the trial court upon a motion for a new trial is to be favorably considered upon appeal and supported unless manifest error appears or unless the action of the trial court in sustaining the motion shows a manifest abuse of his discretion, and the rule is particularly applicable where the new trial has been granted, since in such cases the rights of the parties are not finally settled as they are where a new trial is refused. Smith v. Walsh, 63 Miss. 584; Harper et al. v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 216 Miss. 321, 62 So.2d 375; Long v. Magnolia Hotel Company, 236 Miss. 655, 111 So.2d 645, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDaniel v. Ritter
...(Miss.1975); Houston v. Page, 208 So.2d 901 (Miss.1968); Conner v. Hatcher, 203 So.2d 309 (Miss.1967); Womble v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 239 Miss. 372, 123 So.2d 235 (1960); Long v. Magnolia Hotel Co., 236 Miss. 655, 111 So.2d 645, sugg. error o'ruled 236 Miss. 655, 114 So.2d ......
-
Wallace v. Thornton, 92-CA-00958-SCT
...392 So.2d 512, 514 (Miss.1981) citing Toyota Motor Co. v. Sanford, 375 So.2d 1036 (Miss.1979) and Womble v. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n, 239 Miss. 372, 123 So.2d 235 (1960); see also Standard Products, Inc. v. Patterson, 317 So.2d 376 (Miss.1975). This is because the amount of damages ......
-
Capital Transport Co. v. Segrest
...was amended by Chap. 230, Laws 1956. Since that time, this Court has followed the rule announced in Womble v. Miss. State Highway Commission, 239 Miss. 372, 123 So.2d 235, 236 (1960), as follows: 'The rule as universally announced in our decisions is that the action of the trial court upon ......
-
Rayner v. Lindsey
...was amended by Chap. 230, Laws 1956. Since that time, this Court has followed the rule announced in Womble v. Miss. State Highway Commission, 239 Miss. 372, 123 So.2d 235, 236 (1960), as follows: 'The rule as universally announced in our decisions is that the action of the trial court upon ......