Court Opinion

ID: 9778760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:19:28.870482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.948764
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, Justice, dissenting. In my opinion it was not reversible error for the trial court to allow the “plat” to be introduced solely for the purpose of showing the number of lots that could be carved from subject land. Certainly the land owner would have been permitted to give that information to the jury had he known it. If the witness had been allowed to go further and testify as to the value of the lots (shown on the plat) that, unquestionably, would have constituted reversible error, as was held in the Watkins case. Such is not the situation in this case since (as stated in the original opinion) the court directed the jury not to consider such testimony. As I read the Watkins case the decision does not rest on the wrongful introduction of the plat, but on the introduction of value testimony.