Court Opinion

ID: 9540446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:16:04.330157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:28.501972
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Judge,
concurring specially. I concur in the judgment of reversal for the sole reason that the only testimony as to value (that of the plaintiff himself) did not demand, or authorize, the verdict directed, and this is true regardless of the cases discussed and of the various rules sponsored by the various opinions. The testimony of the plaintiff as to value was contradictory and equivocal, and construed most strongly against him did not authorize the verdict directed. It, therefore, is un*336necessary to affirm or overrule any of the previous decisions of this court discussed and referred to in the opinion and relating to the probative value and. legal effect of opinion evidence, and I expressly dissent, for this reason, to the overruling of any of these decisions.
I am authorized to say that Felton, C. J., Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., join me in this special concurrence.