Shelby County v. OldhamShelby County v. Oldham
This is аn appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County assessing damages and compensation at $4,500 in a condemnаtion proceeding.
Shelby County, a body corporate, filed an application in the Probate Court of Shelby County sеeking to acquire the property of appellee for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, improving and rеlocating portions of Highway 31 in Shelby County, Alabama. The application was granted by the Probate Court, commissioners аppointed to assess the damages and compensation to which appellee was entitled, made their rеport, and after the payment of 'the award into court an order of condemnation was entered. The apрellee then appealed to the Circuit Court under Title 19, § 17, Code of Alabama 1940, and demanded trial by jury. After verdict and judgment in favor of the appellee, appellant filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled, and Shelby County prosеcuted this appeal.
. There is only one assignment of error and that relates to the action of the trial court in rеfusing to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial. The motion for new trial is rested on the general grounds that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and evidence in the case, that it was a result of prejudice, passion and capricе on the part of the jury, and that the amount of the damages awarded is grossly excessive.
The evidence tended to show that prior to the condemnation, the old Highway 31 at appellee’s property wаs approximately five feet higher than her property. It became necessary to raise the roadbed six feet and replace the old pavement which is now the west lane of the four lane highway and is designed for northbound traffic. It was necessary to build a lane for southbound traffic adjacent to the old highway farther west of and partly on appеllee’s property. The fill for the southbound traffic, therefore, is some 11 feet higher than appellee’s property. It was necessary also to take a portion off of the east • end of appellee’s property. Mr. W. H. McMahon, an engineer with the State Highway Department and appellant’s witness, testified that there were 77 feet of apрellee’s highway frontage taken. The new right-of-way line comes to within some 6.7 feet of the main part of appellеe’s residence. Prior to the construction, her house was situated approximately 80 feet from the highway. Prior to the сhange in the road, appellee had a driveway leading east from her property onto the old highway and onto the pavement thereof. Since the construction of the new highway, the fill prevents access to the highway in front of her house, so that it became necessary to build, and there has been built, an access road down to her house and on the west side of the highway as now constructed, which access road leads south from the house parallel with the new highwаy and on the right-of-way from the new highway. This access extends about 150 or 200 feet from the house to where it intersects anothеr road which connects up with the other highway. Appellee has access to the new highway by that route. There werе several photographs introduced in evidence on the trial of the cause in the Circuit Court which tend to show the cоndition of the new highway and of appellee’s property and also the location of the road with referenсe to appellee’s property. These photographs are attached to and made a part оf the record.
Prior to the construction of the new highway, appellee’s property was 45 feet in width fronting the highway and was 85 feet in width on the back. Her property was between 180 and 185 feet in depth. After the construction of the new highway, her property was only 103 feet in depth. It appears that appellee lost practically all of her front yard, including shade trees and shrubbery, and because of the raising of the highway her view has been obstructed.
The evidence was in conflict as to the damages to which appellee was entitled. Appellant’s witness, Chichester, set the damages to aрpellee’s property at $1,750. Four witnesses introduced by appellee testified on the question of damages, their opinions ranging from $4,500 to $5,-500.
It is clear that there was evidence to support the verdict of the jury. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were passed on by the jury. The presiding judge, in denying the appellant’s motion for a new trial, gave evidence of his satisfaction with the verdict. The verdict of a jury is presumed to be correct and will not be reversed unless after allowing all reasonable presumptions of its correctness the preponderance of the еvidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the court that it is wrong and unjust. Cobb v. Malone & Collins,
After carefully considering the record in the light оf the foregoing well-settled rules, we cannot say that the trial court erred in refusing to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial. It follows that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.
Affirmed.