Hill v. State

289 S.W.2d 801, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 2204
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 12, 1956
Docket6881
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 289 S.W.2d 801 (Hill 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
Hill v. State, 289 S.W.2d 801, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 2204 (Tex. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

DAVIS, Justice.

This is a condemnation suit by the State of Texas, Condemner, against Richard Hill et ux., Condemnees. Condemnees perfected an appeal from the award of the special Commissioners and trial was had in the County Court of Upshur County before a jury. Judgment was rendered for a lesser sum than condemnees contended was the value of the land sought to be condemned, plus the damages to the remaining portion thereof, and condemnees have appealed.

Appellant-condemnees bring forth two points of error. By point 1 they complain of the action of the trial court in permitting one of the special Commissioners to testify, over timely objection, that the special Commission assessed the damages to appellants’ property at a certain sum. This was error. Giersa v. Denison & P. S. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W. 925; Crystal City & U. R. Co. v. Boothe, Tex.Civ.App., 126 S.W. 700; City of Denton v. Chastain, Tex.Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d 554; Lower Colorado River Authority v. Burton, Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 783; Hatchett v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d 771. The point is sustained.

By point 2, appellants complain of the action of the trial court in permitting the testimony of the State’s witness, over timely objection, that the State would not exercise, or there is no present intention of exercising, to the full extent, the rights acquired by the condemnation. This, too, was error. Perkins v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W.2d 157; 29 C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 155, p. 1015.

There are numerous other authorities in support of each point.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.'

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

Related

City of Pearland v. Alexander
483 S.W.2d 244 (Texas Supreme Court, 1972)
City of Pearland v. Alexander
468 S.W.2d 917 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
State v. Frost
456 S.W.2d 245 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Wiseman v. State
406 S.W.2d 253 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
City of Corpus Christi v. Nemec
404 S.W.2d 834 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
City of Corpus Christi v. Polasek
404 S.W.2d 826 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
State v. Berry
385 S.W.2d 711 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Creighton v. State
366 S.W.2d 840 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Lebo v. Johnson
349 S.W.2d 744 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 S.W.2d 801, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-texapp-1956.