Court Opinion

ID: 9826029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:13:39.871233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:22.887956
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hydrick.
I concur in the result because it does not appear from the record that any motion was *180made by appellant in the Circuit Court to have the amount of compensation ascertained by a jury in that court.
I am not prepared to assent to the view that the institution of proceedings under the condemnation statutes estops the petitioner therein from claiming the right to have the amount of compensation “ascertained by a jury of twelve men, in a court of record,” or that the party appealing from the verdict of a jury in such proceedings must “satisfy the Court of the reasonable sufficiency of the grounds of appeal” before he can claim the right to have the compensation “ascertained by a jury of twelve men, in a court of record,” if that right is guaranteed by the constitution, or that a jury organized under the condemnation statutes is “a jury of twelve men in a court of record” within the meaning of section 20, article IX of the Constitution. But, as the decision of the questions is not necessary to' the decision of this case, and, as I understand the previous decisions of this Court, they have not yet been decided, I concur.