State v. Spears

Court of Appeals of Texas

State v. Spears

374 S.W.2d 250

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 13, 1963

Docket6643

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 374 S.W.2d 250 (State v. Spears) 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. Spears, 374 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENSON, Justice.

This is an eminent domain case brought by the State of Texas to acquire a strip of land for highway right-of-way purposes. This was a partial taking case and the only-points involved aré in connection with the-value of the remainder after the taking.. The State contends this finding of the jury is supported by no evidence and that such-finding is against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence.

The jury found, the market value of the-remainder, after taking, to be $8,905.00. Four expert witnesses testified, and placed' this value at $10,781.00, $11,735.00, $10,-387.00 and $9,550.00.

The jury was not authorized to fix a value on the property in question, after the taking, at a less sum than that given-by any witness. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Lynch, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W. 362; Roberts v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 350 S.W.2d 388.

The award found by the jury was-.excessive by the sum of $645.00. We conclude, therefore, that the appellees should be allowed to take the lesser sum if they so desire; and, if appellees shall file in> this court within 15 days their remittitur of $645.00, being the difference between the-$8,905.00 found by the jury to be the value of the remainder, after taking, and $9,550.-00 being the least value testified to by the-witnesses, as to such value. Such remit-titur must also include all interest which has accrued on such $645.00. Failing this remittitur, the trial court judgment will be reversed and remanded. Rule 440, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Lynch, Tex.Com.App., 221 S.W. 959; Hopson v. Gulf Oil Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 323.

The judgment is affirmed conditionally.

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

STEPHENSON, Justice.

This is an eminent domain case brought by the State of Texas to acquire a strip of land for highway right-of-way purposes. This was a partial taking case and the only-points involved aré in connection with the-value of the remainder after the taking.. The State contends this finding of the jury is supported by no evidence and that such-finding is against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence.

The jury found, the market value of the-remainder, after taking, to be $8,905.00. Four expert witnesses testified, and placed' this value at $10,781.00, $11,735.00, $10,-387.00 and $9,550.00.

The jury was not authorized to fix a value on the property in question, after the taking, at a less sum than that given-by any witness. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Lynch, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W. 362; Roberts v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 350 S.W.2d 388.

The award found by the jury was-.excessive by the sum of $645.00. We conclude, therefore, that the appellees should be allowed to take the lesser sum if they so desire; and, if appellees shall file in> this court within 15 days their remittitur of $645.00, being the difference between the-$8,905.00 found by the jury to be the value of the remainder, after taking, and $9,550.-00 being the least value testified to by the-witnesses, as to such value. Such remit-titur must also include all interest which has accrued on such $645.00. Failing this remittitur, the trial court judgment will be reversed and remanded. Rule 440, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Lynch, Tex.Com.App., 221 S.W. 959; Hopson v. Gulf Oil Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 323.

The judgment is affirmed conditionally.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 S.W.2d 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-spears-texapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack