Court Opinion

ID: 9855409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:24:29.428157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:15.298621
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice
(dissenting).
In the instant case the damages sustained by defendants, according to the testimony, varied from $1350.00 to $7000.00. The verdict of the jury determined the amount *513thereof to he $6000.00. This was within the limits fixed by the testimony.
The verdict and judgment based thereon have been vacated for the reason that counsel for defendants asked Authority’s expert witness Remington certain questions eliciting an answer as to the amount Authority had recently paid for the “Griffith tract”. Mr. Remington on direct examination had testified as to the amount Griffith had paid two years previously for 160 acres. On cross-examination Remington stated that Griffith purchased his land for $45,000.00, but that now it was worth $57,000.00.
The testimony of defendant Deal in effect has been found to have no probative value. I know of no authority to show that defendant Deal was wholly disqualified as a witness. It has been the practice in Oklahoma, fairly uniformly followed, to permit the owners of lands sought to be taken in eminent domain proceedings to testify as to their damages. The jury had an opportunity to observe this witness and his demeanor. It was in a better position to determine the credibility of the witness and the weight to be accorded to his testimony. A review of the testimony convinces me that the jury believed Mr. Deal to the extent at least of $1000.00, inasmuch as the verdict exceeded the amounts set by defendants’ other witnesses by that amount. The evidence of defendant Deal was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and by $1000.00 to spare.
No complaint that there was error in the instructions was made.
From a study of the cross-examination of Remington concerning the amount Authority paid Griffith, I find little, if any, reason to support Authority’s claim that such was improper and may have been prejudicial to Authority.
Defendants’ counsel had sought to show by cross-examination of the named expert witness that the man from whom Griffith had purchased had had to sell to Griffith to settle his father’s estate which had been left to his step-mother and himself and was not truly a sale by one willing but not obligated to sell to one who was willing but not obligated to buy. The witness was unable to give information on the point and it was not pursued further.
Defendants’ counsel then cross-examined the witness fairly vigorously as to whether the Authority had not paid $50,000.00 to $70,000.00 for. some 22.76 acres of the Griffith tract and some 10 or 11 other acres of another tract and the witness said in effect he didn’t know, that he was in charge of appraisals, not purchases, but that it was nearer the smaller figure.
Defendants rely upon the case of Wilkerson v. Grand River Dam Authority, 195 Okl. 678, 161 P.2d 745. The trial court was apparently cognizant of that Authority as is demonstrated by its repeated admonition to the jury that such questions and any information to be elicited thereby should be considered only by the jury to test witness Remington’s credibility. I have noted hereinabove that witness Remington said the farm was now worth only $57,000.00, presumably after deduction of the 22.76 acres. The witness did not give the exact amount, said the land was far better land than that involved in the trial from which this appeal arose, said he •did not know the exact amount, nor how much was to go for each of the two Griffith parcels, etc. In my opinion this did not amount to a disclosure to the jury of the amount of some other person’s settlement.
If the jury was influenced by anything other than the owner’s and expert testimony as to damage it probably was nothing more nor less than a suggestion by defendants’ counsel who, during argument, twice suggested that a verdict in the exact amount of the one returned would in his opinion be a fair one. No objection was made to such suggestion.
I am of the opinion that the cross-examination of Remington concerning substantial ($50,000.00-$70,000.00) payment by *514Authority to Griffith did not tend to arouse any undue passion or prejudice in the minds of the jury and that therefore the judgment is not excessive.
I respectfully dissent.