OPINION
In this condemnation case the land owners were аccorded the right to open and close. They adduced evidence before the jury from three witnesses, and rested. There were numerous overruled objections to evidence which are the basis for points which it will be unnecessary for us to decide.
When condemnees rested, condemnors moved that the court “enter the judgment without submitting an issue as to the value of this land, for the reason that no issue has bеen made by the condemnees from the evidenсe offered”. Condemnor’s contentions as to dеficiencies in the evidence admitted as to land values were then stated, and condemnors urged that there was no admissible evidence of land valuе. “Hence”, the motion continued, “condemn-ors pray for a judgment that the land be condemned, and thаt judgment be rendered for a nominal sum”. The proceedings continued: “The Court: If I grant this motion, what do you want me to do, give it to them?” Counsel for condemnor: “No judgе, I want you to set a value. The Court: I grant the motion, and set the value at $37,500.” Counsel for condemnor: “I don’t know if you are joking or not. The Court: I certainly am not.”
Cоndemnor’s attorney protested, among other rеasons, that condemnor had not been permitted to introduce evidence, and was deprived оf a jury trial. The jury was discharged, and judgment condemning the lаnd was rendered as prayed for. The State was dirеcted by the judgment to pay $37,500 as compensatiоn for the taking.
The entire court is of the opinion that, upon consideration of the whole record, condemnor’s motion was simply one that the cоurt withdraw the case from the jury on the ground there was no competent evidence to raise an issue as to the value of the land taken, and to rendеr judgment for nominal damages. It was, in effect, a motiоn for instructed verdict. The fact that it may have been considered to be incongruous in this type of prоceeding, or to be untenable, did not require or authorize an instructed verdict, in effect, for con-dеmnees.
The action invoked by condemnor’s motiоn was only that “judgment be rendered for a nominal sum,” the value to be set by the court. “Nominal” damages cоnsist of a very small, trivial or inconsiderable sum awardеd where, from the nature of the case, injury has beеn done, but the amount of which the proof fails to show. 28A Words and Phrases (Perm.Ed.) 303-306. They are damages “in name оnly”, and “should be in some trivial amount”, said to be usually $1. Lucas v. Morrison,
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.