State v. Coone

Court of Appeals of Texas

State v. Coone

336 S.W.2d 920, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2350

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 16, 1960

DocketNo. 3715

StatusPublished

This text of 336 S.W.2d 920 (State v. Coone) 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

State v. Coone, 336 S.W.2d 920, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2350 (Tex. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

WILSON, Justice.

The State contends the verdict in this eondemnation case is excessive and that there is insufficient evidence, or none, to support findings as to damages to the remainder on one tract.

These points are overruled. The •evidence fully supports the verdict. Appellant asks us to hold, in effect, that “the positive, categorical, factual statements of the engineering witness for the condemnor as to the type of highway to be built, grade cuts, etc.,” cannot be totally ignored by the jury. The record does not reflect the jury did this. Neither may it be said unequivocally that the engineer’s testimony, when the rest of the record is regarded, was ■so infallible as to bind the jury. His testimony in the respects urged, even if considered conclusive, affected the weight to he given the testimony of only one of appellees’ witnesses. There was other competent evidence of probative force ■supporting the verdict. Opinion evidence from three other witnesses as to “before and after taking” valuation supported the findings. While the verdict might be regarded as large, we cannot say, under the record, it was excessive.

The State complains of exclusion of •evidence as to sale price of other realty claimed to be similar and comparable to land taken. The property sought to be ■compared was unimproved land, although adjacent to appellees’. Appellees’ land was improved. It was a part of a filling station. An island for pumps, gravel driveway, concrete pipe and the overhanging portion of the canopy were within the taking line. It has been held not to be error to exclude the evidence under these circumstances. City of Austin v. Cannizzo, 153 Tex. 324, 267 S.W.2d 808, 816. The evidence did not show the sale was voluntary. The court inquired, “There was no way of telling whether it was a voluntary purchase?” The witness: “No, sir.” We cannot say the exclusion constituted reversible error. 16 Tex.Jur. Sec. 260, p. 593. We have carefully considered appellant’s points, which are overruled. Affirmed.

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

WILSON, Justice.

The State contends the verdict in this eondemnation case is excessive and that there is insufficient evidence, or none, to support findings as to damages to the remainder on one tract.

These points are overruled. The •evidence fully supports the verdict. Appellant asks us to hold, in effect, that “the positive, categorical, factual statements of the engineering witness for the condemnor as to the type of highway to be built, grade cuts, etc.,” cannot be totally ignored by the jury. The record does not reflect the jury did this. Neither may it be said unequivocally that the engineer’s testimony, when the rest of the record is regarded, was ■so infallible as to bind the jury. His testimony in the respects urged, even if considered conclusive, affected the weight to he given the testimony of only one of appellees’ witnesses. There was other competent evidence of probative force ■supporting the verdict. Opinion evidence from three other witnesses as to “before and after taking” valuation supported the findings. While the verdict might be regarded as large, we cannot say, under the record, it was excessive.

The State complains of exclusion of •evidence as to sale price of other realty claimed to be similar and comparable to land taken. The property sought to be ■compared was unimproved land, although adjacent to appellees’. Appellees’ land was improved. It was a part of a filling station. An island for pumps, gravel driveway, concrete pipe and the overhanging portion of the canopy were within the taking line. It has been held not to be error to exclude the evidence under these circumstances. City of Austin v. Cannizzo, 153 Tex. 324, 267 S.W.2d 808, 816. The evidence did not show the sale was voluntary. The court inquired, “There was no way of telling whether it was a voluntary purchase?” The witness: “No, sir.” We cannot say the exclusion constituted reversible error. 16 Tex.Jur. Sec. 260, p. 593. We have carefully considered appellant’s points, which are overruled. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 S.W.2d 920, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coone-texapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack