Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Frankfurt v. City of Dallas

Frankfurt v. City of Dallas

299 S.W.2d 722, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 2414
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 8, 1957
DocketNo. 15220
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 299 S.W.2d 722 (Frankfurt v. City of Dallas) 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
Frankfurt v. City of Dallas, 299 S.W.2d 722, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 2414 (Tex. Ct. App. 1957).

Opinion

CRAMER, Justice.

This is a condemnation proceeding involving a tract of land within the City of Dallas, on Highway 175, and containing 8,707 sq. ft. The only controverted question of fact on the trial was the value of the land taken and the damage to the remaining portion of the tract. The jury found (1) the market value of the land condemned to be $3,482.80, and (2) that the balance of the tract was not decreased in value as a result of the taking; and, the trial court having instructed the jury that if they answered issue No. 2, “No”, not to answer issues 3 and 4, such issues were not answered. Judgment was entered awarding the land to the City for the purposes set out in the petition and ordered $3,482.80 paid to Frankfurt et al. out of the deposit made by the City with the Clerk based on the Commissioners’ award, and ordered the balance of such deposit returned to the City. Appellants have duly perfected this appeal from such judgment, here briefing five points of error.

Point 1 asserts error in admitting testimony of the witness Watts with reference to appellee’s exhibits 2 and 3, and to the admission of said exhibits into evidence in the light of the witness’s own testimony that the aerial photographs did not reflect a true and accurate reproduction of the appellants’ property. Appellee counters that there was no error in such action because the exhibits were properly identified, they accurately portrayed the condition on the ground, and showed the condemned property and the neighborhood surrounding it.

[724]*724The City’s exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were:

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

Related

Aaron v. State
122 So. 2d 360 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 S.W.2d 722, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 2414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankfurt-v-city-of-dallas-texapp-1957.