Court Opinion

ID: 9676089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:14:22.978236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:43.699093
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice (dissenting). In reducing the judgment, this Court is substituting its own opinion for that of the jury, which is supposed to settle disputed questions of fact. The testimony showed that the Pipe Line Company not only took 3.52 acres of land for a right-of-way, but also trespassed on 10 acres adjoining the right-of-way and covered the said 10 acres with quicksand two to four feet in depth. One witness testified that the entire 10 acres was ruined for cultivation, and that it was worth the value of the 10 acres to get it back into as good a state of cultivation as before the Pipeline Company damaged it. There was substantial evidence that the land was worth $275 an acre before the Pipeline Company entered the land. Furthermore, the plaintiff testified that his crops, growing on the 13.58 acres, were lost, and that his crop damage was $1,764. With the foregoing testimony in the record, here are the calculations: 3.52 acres actually taken for right-of-way @ $275.00 per acre.............................$ 968.00 10 acres rendered worthless, @ $275.00 per acre ..................................................................... 2,750.00 Crop damage..................................................................... 1,764.00 $5,482.00 In the light of the foregoing, I do. not see how this Court can say that the verdict of $4,500 is excessive. The question is not what we might have decided if we had been in the jury box. The question is whether there is substantial evidence to sustain the jury verdict. I find that there was. We are not supposed to usurp the functions of the jury. For the reasons herein stated, I am of the opinion that the judgment of $4,500 should be affirmed in its entirety; and I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Millwee joins me in these views.