Title: State v. Holloway

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

307 So. 2d 13 (1975)
STATE of Alabama
v.
R. R. HOLLOWAY et al.
SC 891.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 16, 1975.
*14 C. R. D. Burns, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Gadsden, for the state, appellant.
Simmons, Torbert & Cardwell, Gadsden, for appellees.
BLOODWORTH, Justice.
The State of Alabama appeals from a judgment awarding damages of $30,000 to landowners in a condemnation proceeding. Judgment was in accordance with a jury verdict. We affirm.
Three assignments of error are argued in brief.
The first assignment of error charges that the trial court erred in sustaining landowners' objection to the following question propounded by the State to one of its own expert witnesses:
Immediately after the trial court sustained the objection, the following occurred:
It is self-evident that error, if any, in sustaining objection when the question was first posed was not prejudicial because the same evidence was admitted thereafter without objection.
Assignment of Error Two arose when, over objection by the State, the trial court admitted in evidence an unrecorded subdivision map of the condemned land. The record reflects the following, viz.:
The stated grounds of objection, argued on this appeal, are that the map was not recorded and not authenticated by the surveyor. It is contended that it is inadmissible, being hearsay evidence, not within any exception thereto, citing Tit. 56, § 7, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recompiled 1958) and Golden v. Rollins, 266 Ala. 640, 98 So. 2d 409 (1958).
*16 Tit. 56, § 7, supra, provides:
In construing this statute, this Court said in Golden v. Rollins, supra:
It is important, however, to note that Golden, supra, was a suit in ejectment with suggestion of a boundary line dispute and the map in that case was offered to establish, with detailed accuracy, the boundary line between the parties. On the other hand, the instant case is a condemnation proceeding and the map in question was not introduced for the purpose of accurately establishing a boundary line. The landowner simply testified that he commissioned the making of the map and that it accurately depicted the general layout of his property.
Thus, we hold that Tit. 56, § 7, supra, and Golden, supra, are inapposite and that the map was not inadmissible for the grounds stated in the objection.
Moreover, the case of Cooper v. State, 274 Ala. 683, 151 So. 2d 399 (1963), is a condemnation case and is directly in point. There, this Court held:
The case of James v. Mizell, 289 Ala. 84, 265 So. 2d 866 (1972), is to like effect:
The trial court did not err in admitting the map into evidence.
In Assignment of Error Three, the trial court is charged with error when, over the objection of the State, a witness for the landowner was permitted to answer the following question:
The only ground of objection stated was:
Tit. 7, § 367, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recompiled 1958) provides as follows:
See also State v. Self, 293 Ala. 541, 307 So. 2d 11 (1975); State v. Woodham, 292 Ala. 363, 294 So. 2d 740 (1974).
By the express terms of the statute the stated ground of objection is not well taken. When a specific ground of objection is stated, all other unstated grounds of objection are deemed waived. Adams v. State, 291 Ala. 224, 279 So. 2d 488 (1973).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HARWOOD, MADDOX, McCALL and FAULKNER, JJ., concur.