Court Opinion

ID: 9771476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:44:49.196383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:31.873984
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, Associate Justice, dissenting. It appears to me that the majority opinion decides this case on an issue foreign to the one on which the case was tried and decided by the trial court. It is true that the complaint is somewhat indefinite as to the exact theory on which appellees sought relief, but among other things, the complaint fairly states an action for damages to the land because of the removal of the scales from the scale house. Among other things, it is stated in the complaint that appellant gave appellees a deed containing a convenant of general warranty and that appellant or his privies removed the scales from the land. In plaintiffs’ prayer they ask for “the amount of $500 for permanent damages to the plaintiffs’ 10 acre tract of land. ’ ’ There are several other things which indicate that the case was tried on this theory by the court sitting as a jury. ONE: The judgment of the court, found at page 17 of the record states: “That the plaintiff do have and recover against the defendant, W. L. Hinton, judgment in the sum of $500 as damages to the premises for the removal of the platform scales.” (Emphasis supplied.) TWO: The record contains three pictures showing the scale house with the scales removed. These pictures would have no meaning if the plaintiffs were suing merely for the value of the scales. They do have meaning on the theory that the plaintiffs were suing for damages, either to the 10 acre tract or the scale house. THREE: Several remarks by the court and by the attorneys indicate that this was a suit for damages to the property. At one time the attorney for appellant stated: “He’s suing for damages and he’s trying to set the value of this property by what the prices were on some scales that were quoted to him. ’ ’ Following this the court stated to appellees ’ attorney: “... you can state the value of the scales before and after the alleged removal. And what the scales in toto, their reasonable value before and after.” Appellant’s attorney replied: ‘ ‘ That is right. ’ ’ The only remaining question then is did appellees prove damages to the extent of the judgment — $500? It is clear to my mind, from the proceedings hereafter set out, that they did. Q. “What is the value of the scale house, or what was the value of the scale house with the scales affixed thereto, in your opinion?” (The question was directed to Mr. Bryant.) THE COURT: “Immediately before the alleged taking and immediately after, those are the essential elements.” MR. DUTY: “Object to the question. He hasn’t qualified as an expert.” THE COURT: “He can — as owner of the property, he can state the value. It can be rebutted by experts. . .” A. “I would say $2,000.00.’’ Q. “And what, in your opinion, is the value of the scale house without the scale ? ’ ’ A. “It’s more a liability than it is an asset at the present time.” In my opinion the above testimony was admissible as competent evidence on tbe theory of damages. It was not rebutted or denied, and it sustains the judgment of the court in the amount of $500. Under this theory of the case the testimony regarding the offer by two people to pay $500 for the scale was inadmissible but it merely constituted harmless error on the part of the court. I would affirm the case.