Court Opinion

ID: 9715860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:17:27.420961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:38.874873
License: Public Domain

On Petition foe Reheaeing
Jackson, C. J.
— Appellant has filed its petition for rehearing alleging that the following statement in the original opinion, set forth below, is in error and contravenes the ruling in State etc. v. Montgomery Cir. Ct. etc. (1959), 239 Ind. 337, 157 N. E. 2d 577, by holding that two separate properties were taken. In the original opinion we said:
“In considering the question as to the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the profits from the business of the lessees, it must be kept in mind that in this case there are two separate properties taken, the real estate and improvements, and the business of the lessees. In this case the evidence as to the profits from the tavern business operated by the lessees related only to the value of the leasehold, and not to the value of the land and building, and was properly admitted as evi*472dence of the amount of damages to which the lessee, Debes and Clements, were entitled by reason of the taking of their business.” . .
It is not our intention to hold that two properties were taken, but only that there were two interests in one property, nor did we intend by the above language, either to overrule or modify State etc. v. Montgomery Cir. Ct. etc., supra.
In considering the question as to the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the profits from the business of lessees, it must be kept in mind that this was . a condemnation action instituted agaihst. a singlé tráct. of land in which. there aré two interests, including, under the leasehold, a going business of the appellees, Debes and Clements. In such a situation it was the duy of the court to fix the fair cash market value of the entire property as between the condemnor and all the defendants. It then becomes the duty of the court to apportion the same according to the respective interests of the defendants. The evidence here in question was admissible as tending to show the value of the lessees’ interest for the purpose of apportioning the total award between the two interests invólvéd. The award stands in the place of the land and the owners of each interest may recover out of the award the proportionate interest which they had in the land condemned.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Achor, Arterburn and Bobbitt, JJ., concur.
Landis, J., concurs in result.
Note. — Reported in 186, N. E. 2d 10. Rehearing denied 186 N. E 2d 799.