Citations
- 89 S.W.2d 194
Full opinion text
GERMAN, Commissioner.
This was a condemnation proceeding brought by the state of Texas, herein referred to as plaintiff, against R. B. Carpenter- and others, herein referred to as defendants. The state sought to condemn 8.03 acres of land for highway purposes across a tract of 240 acres owned by Carpenter and wife. In the trial court a judgment was rendered in favor of defendants - for $803 as the value of the 8.03 acres taken for' right of way, and for $3,477 as depreciation in the value of the balance of the farm. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 55 S.W.(2d) 219. The questions for determination here pertain to charges of the court in submitting questions as to compensation.
By special issue No. 1 the jury was asked to determine the reasonable market value of the 8.03 acres. They answered $803. In connection with this question the jury was instructed as follows: “In connection with Special Issue No. 1, you are instructed that the market value of the 8%jo acres of land within the right of way, is not the market value of said land taken for right of way purposes when considered by itself alone, but is its market value as a part of the entire tract of which it forms a part.”
The court inquired of the jury to ascertain whether or not the market value of the remainder 'of the farm had been reduced by reason of the condemnation of the 8.03 acres taken. The jury answered, “Yes.” The court also submitted special issue No. 3 as follows: “What amount, in dollars and cents, do you find, from a preponderance of the evidence, that the remainder of the R. B. Carpenter farm will be reduced in market value by the condemnation of the 8¾00 acres of land, if any?”
To this question the jury answered $3,477, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant for the $803 and the $3,477.
The first question for decision concerns the action of the court in giving the instruction set .out above in connection with special issue No. 1. Perhaps if the value of the strip of land taken had been the only issue submitted, it would have been proper to submit the question of its value, considered as a part of the whole tract. However, it seems to us obvious that when the value of this strip was ascertained “as a part of the entire tract of