State v. EdmundsonState v. Edmundson
This is an appeal by the State from a judgment granting appellee’s motion fоr a new trial. The case arose as follows:
The State filed its petition for condemnation of a part of a tract of land owned by appellees in the city of Birmingham. The petition was filed in the Probate Court of Jefferson County which appointed commissioners to determine the amount of cоmpensation to which the appellees were entitled. The commissioners awarded the sum of $20,000 and the State appealed to the Circuit Court.
Thе only question presented to the jury in the Circuit Court was the amount of compensation and damages due appellees. The State’s evidence on this sole issue consisted of an opinion by the State’s expert witness that the compensation due appel-lees amounted to $13,700. Experts on behalf of the landowners testified that they were entitled to $20,000. The jury returned a verdict оf $13,500, lower than the *294 lowest amount fixed by the testimony. From the trial court’s judgment granting the аppellee’s motion for a new trial the State appealed.
The sole question to be decided by us then is: Did the trial court err in granting the motion for a new trial where the jury’s verdict was below the lowest figure mentioned in the evidenсe.
In seeking a reversal the State has two hurdles to overcome:
(1) The trial court’s granting of the motion for new trial is largely discretionary and carries а strong presumption of correctness:
“It has long been a rule of law in this jurisdictiоn that the granting or refusing of a motion for a new trial is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court, and its order granting a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal unless some legal right of the appellant has been abused. There is a presumption that the court’s discretion was properly exercisеd. The lower court will not be reversed unless the record plainly and palрably shows that the trial court was in error.” Taylor v. Brownell-O’Hear Pontiac Comрany,265 Ala. 468 ,91 So.2d 828 .
(2) Additionally the State is faced with this court’s holding in State of Alabama v. Crawford et al.,
This court agreed with the State’s contention in that case that in the absence of a view of the property or some other basis fоr so doing, the jury’s award in excess of the highest amount established by the testimony was duе to be set aside. In the
Crawford
case we cited with approval Burchard v. State,
There, as here, and as in State of Alabama v. Walker,
In both of these cases the award made by the jury exceeded the amount of the highest figure fixed by the witnesses. This casе differs only in that the amount of the verdict is below the lowest figure fixed by the testimony. The Statе would have us then agree with it that a jury may not (without other evidence, not involved here) return a verdict in excess of the amount established by the evidence, but that a jury may render a verdict in lesser amount than any figure established by the witnessеs. Thus it would have Crawford and Walker, supra, limited to those cases where an excess is involved — thus fixing a maximum amount, but not to a case such as the one before us. We do not bеlieve those cases are compatible with this argument, particularly since Crawford cited with approval a New York case involving the exact situation before us.
The trial court did not err in granting the motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.