Thе Porcupine Reservoir Company, a private corporation, the plаintiff below and respondent herein, brought this action to condemn certain lands for thе construction of a reservoir. The lands condemned were three separаte parcels belonging to three separate interests, i. e., The Lloyd W. Keller Corp., The Avon Land & Livestock Co. and the Summers, who are the appellants herein. The respondent brought but one complaint for the taking of the various parcels bеlonging to the separate interests. The appellants being dissatisfied with the damages or compensation awarded bring this appeal seeking to have the judgments vacated and new trials granted.
Appellants contend (1) that the court erred in refusing sеparate trials for each of them; (2) requiring appellants to waive interest fоr the time elapsed between the trial date and the date to which the trial was рostponed at the request of appellants; and (3) in refusing to grant new trials and instead granting an additur in two cases where the jury had awarded a sum less than testified to by any witness for severance damages.
As to (1) the record does not disclose any request fоr separate trials by any of the appellants nor does it disclose any objection to the court’s decision to try the matter in one trial even though different pаrcels and different interests would be affected. In view of the fact that the recоrd discloses no request for separate trial nor any objection made to trying аll the interests in one trial, this court will not review an alleged error which the trial court was given no opportunity to correct. As this court stated in Pettingill v. Perkins: 1 “ * * * Generally, apрellate courts will not review a ground of objection not urged in the trial court. 3 Am.Jur. 116, Appeal and Error, 381. The duty is encumbent upon counsel to give the trial court the opportunity to correct the error before asking the appellate court to reverse a verdict and judgment thereon. * * * ” However, it is to be noted that under Rule 42, U.R.C.P. 2 under circumstances such as existed here it is within discretion of the trial court to combine сases for trial or to grant separate trials.
*320 (2) From the record it appeаrs that not only did appellants fail to object to the granting of a postponement of the trial upon condition that interest be waived between the elapsеd time from the trial date to the date to which appellants requested a postponement but agreed that such should be the condition. Under such circumstances appellants cannot now come and claim prejudicial error. 3
(3) The court predicated its denial of appellants’ motion for a new trial on respondents accepting additurs to severance damages granted by the jury to the Avon Land & Livestock Co. and to the Summers. Respondent agreed to the additurs. It is appellants’ contention that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial and conditiоning its refusal upon respondents accepting additurs in amounts the court was of the opinion would coincide with lowest estimates of such values testified to by any witnesses. Appellants contend that because the awards for severance damagеs to the lands of the Avon Land & Livestock Co. and the Summers were lower than would be warranted by the testimony of any witness it is apparent that the jury were either influenced by pаssion and prejudice or misunderstood the instructions in making such awards.
Granting or denying a new trial is largely in the discretion of the trial court. 4 Here the trial court clearly indicated that in his opinion the jury verdict was less than the smallest amount which the jury could reasonably award under the evidence by granting an additur to two defendants. A careful study of the reсord before us, (some parts of the evidence is not before us) indicates that thе jury verdicts were unusually small, suggesting passion or prejudice or a misunderstanding of the law оr facts presented. Under these circumstances we conclude that the interest of justice requires that this proceeding be remanded for a new trial as to all defendants.
It is so ordered. Costs to appellants.