Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Bruner v. State

Bruner v. State

391 S.W.2d 149, 1965 Tex. App. LEXIS 2748
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 7, 1965
Docket16634
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 391 S.W.2d 149 (Bruner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bruner v. State, 391 S.W.2d 149, 1965 Tex. App. LEXIS 2748 (Tex. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

MASSEY, Chief Justice.

This is a condemnation case, from the judgment in which condemnees Julius Bruner and his wife appealed because of their dissatisfaction with the amount awarded for the property taken by con-demnor for highway purposes. Involved is only the value of the property taken, there being no issue on dimunition of the value of the remainder of the condemnees’ property.

Judgment affirmed.

The main questions presented on appeal consist of complaints because of the exclusion of testimony. Among such was the testimony of the condemnees’ expert witness L. G. Key as to his estimate of the value of the property taken. This exclusion was error, but not reversible error. Additional was evidence tendered by this and other expert witnesses concerning the amounts for which property, allegedly comparable, had been sold in the vicinity of that condemned. There were five sales of such property, according to condemnees’ theory, and all were excluded. The trial court excluded evidence bearing upon the sale of one parcel, a 21 acre tract, on the theory that the evidence established a trade of lands rather than a sale or sales. The court excluded evidence bearing upon the sale of the other four parcels, as well as the 21 acre tract, because each of the five parcels had “railroad frontage”, i. e., abutted directly upon existing railroad facilities or was very near to trackage. The condemned property was between one-quarter mile to one-half mile distant from existing trackage.

In addition, but coupled with the aforesaid complaint (s) and of concern if it becomes necessary in the test of whether the foregoing, as error, amounts to reversible error under the provisions of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 434, (that is, that the exclusion of condemnees’ evidence was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the jury to return a verdict other than the verdict it did return had such evidence been admitted) is condemnees’ contention that the trial court was unduly liberal when he permitted the condemnor to introduce evidence showing amounts for which property, allegedly comparable, had been sold in the area near the condemned property. Condemnees claim that said property, two tracts sold severally and by different grantors, was not comparable to that condemned and hence the sales did not amount to comparable sales, — but that in any event, though it be conceded that evidence thereof was properly admitted, the reception of such evidence by the jury on a trial pursuant to which there had been excluded from their consideration the aforementioned proffered evidence of condemnees demonstrates that condemnees sustained such prejudice that the error claimed was reversible.

To aid in understanding the situation, we include for purposes of the opinion a map or plat, drawn to scale so that the location, shape and size of the aforementioned tracts of property may be visualized.

*152

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bridges v. Trinity River Authority
570 S.W.2d 50 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Urban Renewal Agency of Austin v. Georgetown Savings & Loan Ass'n
509 S.W.2d 419 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
State ex rel. City of Wichita Falls v. Rust
468 S.W.2d 581 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Stewart v. State
453 S.W.2d 524 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Clifco, Inc. v. State
450 S.W.2d 157 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
State v. Chavers
448 S.W.2d 220 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
City of Austin v. Flink
443 S.W.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Ford v. State
432 S.W.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Brazos River Authority v. Gilliam
429 S.W.2d 949 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Crouch v. State
413 S.W.2d 141 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Texas Power & Light Company v. Adams
404 S.W.2d 930 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Melton v. State
395 S.W.2d 426 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
391 S.W.2d 149, 1965 Tex. App. LEXIS 2748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruner-v-state-texapp-1965.