Court Opinion

ID: 9713725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:20:56.050405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:16.853625
License: Public Domain

JONES, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
1 dissent. In the present case, there was no appeal from the verdict and judgment rendered thereon in the Court of Common Pleas on the issue of damages awardable for the condemnation and taking. Where a party considers the amount of a verdict to be insufficient, there exists an adequate remedy in an appeal at law. Appellee even concedes in its brief to this Court that appellant is entitled to reimbursement for its bill of costs in the original suit at law. In light of the existence of an adequate remedy at law, the only permissible conclusion is that the writ of mandamus will not lie in this action.
Judicial economy requires us to affirm the order of the court below.