DENNEY v. STATE ex rel. KING

DENNEY v. STATE ex rel. KING
1937 OK 6
64 P.2d 298
179 Okla. 35
Case Number: 27031
Decided: 01/19/1937
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

DENNEY
v.
STATE ex rel. KING, Atty. Gen.

Syllabus

¶0 EMINENT DOMAIN
In the absence of error of law, a verdict for damages in condemnation proceedings, reasonably supported by conflicting evidence, will not be set aside on appeal.

Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; F. Hiner Dale, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of J. Berry King, Attorney General, against Robert E. Lee Denney, to condemn land for a highway. From a verdict and judgment assessing damages, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. B. Leedy, of Arnett, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. B. Leedy, Co. Atty., of Arnett, for defendant in error.

WELCH, Justice.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment based upon the verdict of a jury awarding damages in a condemnation proceeding. The parties will be referred to herein as plaintiff and defendant as they appeared in the trial court, which is reverse to the order of their appearance here.

¶2 The plaintiff, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, took a strip of land for road purposes running diagonally across defendant's three 40-acre tracts of land. The damage was fixed at $1,250 by the appraisers. Upon demand for jury trial, a verdict was returned fixing the amount of damages at $1,165. Both parties filed motion for new trial, and defendant's motion was overruled. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was sustained, unless the defendant would enter a remittitur for $165, which the defendant refused to do, whereupon a new trial was granted. Upon the second trial the jury viewed the premises and, after hearing competent evidence tending to fix the value of the damages at amounts ranging from $16.50 to $4,000, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in the sum of $800.

¶3 The sole proposition urged by the defendant here is "that the damages awarded the plaintiff in error is not commensurate for the damages to his property and homestead, and the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence, and contrary to law."

¶4 An examination of the record discloses that the evidence considered by the jury is sharply conflicting, but it is our conclusion that the verdict of the jury is amply and reasonably supported by the evidence. In City of Cushing v. Pote et al., 128 Okl. 303, 262 P. 1070, 1071, this court, in concluding in a condemnation case that the evidence reasonably supported the verdict of the jury, said: "This court has often repeated the rule that, where there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, the same will not be disturbed on appeal. Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Goble, 77 Okl. 206, 186 P. 723; Smith v. Star Mercantile Co., 54 Okl. 502, 153 P. 1188; Linkhart v. Kirkhart, 54 Okl. 699, 154 P. 645." See, also, Denver, W. & M. Ry. Co. v. Adkinson, 28 Okl. 1, 119 P. 247, and Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co. v. McAlary, 44 Okl. 326, 144 P. 583.

¶5 The judgment is affirmed.