Court Opinion

ID: 9688873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:10:20.988461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.781971
License: Public Domain

Lee, J.,
Dissenting:
Of course the State Highway Commission had the right and power to take the right of way here involved. But, under Sec. 17 of the Constitution, due compensa*897tion must be made therefor. The tribunal, set up to determine the damage in such a case, is composed of a judge and a jury. Two juries passed on this question. One awarded ‡32,000 and the other $28,500. The difference in the opinions of the witnesses of both the Commission and the landowners, as to damage, was so great as to appear almost incredible. The juries obviously rejected both versions of the litigants. However those jurors, twenty-four of them, viewed the property. Of course jurors are not infallible, and some of them go astray just as all other men.
I am inclined to think that under the showing in this record, even the second verdict is somewhat excessive. But I am not a magician, and I am not able to devise a formula under which I can lay my hand on my heart and come up with a figure which I can say, in good conscience, is due compensation to these landowners ■ for the damage which they will suffer by reason of this seizure. To say the least of it, I cannot accede to a judgment which will have the effect of holding that the second jury was wrong by at least $11,000. Under the circumstances, I think the case should be simply remanded for a new trial.