STATE ex rel. CITY OF ARDMORE v. MOCK

STATE ex rel. CITY OF ARDMORE v. MOCK
1945 OK 48
156 P.2d 802
195 Okla. 246
Case Number: 31567
Decided: 02/06/1945
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STATE EX REL. CITY OF ARDMORE
v.
MOCK

Syllabus

¶0 1. EMINENT DOMAIN-Scope of city's liability where it condemns land for airport and leases same to the U. S. Government which constructs and operates airport.
Where a city condemns land to be used with other land for the construction and operation of an airport and leases it to the United States Government, and the latter then constructs and operates the airport, the city is liable in the condemnation proceedings for damages caused by the proper construction and operation of the airport.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR-Admission of incompetent evidence not presumed prejudicial where jury instructed to disregard same.
Where evidence not admissible is admitted, and thereafter the jury is instructed not to consider the same, no prejudicial error resulting from its admission will ordinarily be presumed.
3. EMINENT DOMAIN- Condemnation of land by city for airport-Instructions held to state correct measure of damages.
Instructions examined, and held, that when considered as a whole they stated the correct measure of damages.
4. SAME-On cross-examination of landowner sustaining objection to question as to what he paid for entire tract held not reversible error.
Where the condemnor questioned the owner, on cross-examination, as to what he paid for the entire tract of 1,474 acres of land a short time before part of the land was taken, and the court sustained objections to such questions, and the condemnor introduced in evidence the deed under which the owner acquired title reciting a consideration of $30,000 for the entire tract, and the condemner made no offer to show what the owner would testify as to the actual consideration paid, and the verdict is supported by competent evidence, the judgment will not be reversed because of the exclusion of such evidence.
5. APPEAL AND ERROR-Burden on appellant to show prejudicial error.
The appelIant has the burden of pointing out wherein the errors complained of in the admission or exclusion of evidence or the giving of instructions probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice or constituted a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right before he is entitled to a reversal of the judgment appealed from.
6. EMINENT DOMAIN-Verdict in condemnation of land for airport held not excessive.
Record examined, and held, that the verdict was not excessive.

Appeal from District Court, Carter County; John C. Caldwell, Judge.

Condemnation proceeding by the State on relation of the City of Ardmore and Clarence Harris, City Manager, against C. F. Mock and wife. From adverse judgment on appeal from award of commissioners, relators appeal. Affirmed.

J. B. Moore, of Ardmore, for plaintiffs in error.
Sigler & Jackson, Geo. N. Otey, R. Rhys Evans, and Champion & Champion, all of Ardmore, for defendants in error.

HURST, V.C.J.

¶1 This case grows out of the same cause as State v. Winters, 195 Okla. 243, 156 P.2d 798. C. F. Mock and wife owned tract No 3 consisting of 232.56 acres, which was a part of a ranch of some 1,474 acres owned by them. The appraisers assessed their damages at $9,220. They filed a demand for a jury trial on the question of the amount of their damages. The case was tried before a jury on March 23, 1943, resulting in a verdict for $15,000, of which $11,000 was for the value of the land taken and $4,000 was for damage to the remainder of the ranch. From a judgment entered on the verdict, the city appeals.

¶2 Mr. and Mrs. Mock claim that the damage to their land not taken was caused by the fact that water was diverted to such land by the way the airfield was constructed, causing some 200 acres of their best land to be flooded and practically ruined, that airplanes taking off from and landing on the airfield fly so low as to scare their cattle and prevent them from putting on weight, and that as a result their ranch, on which there were several silos and buildings and improvements sufficient to feed and care for as many as 1,000 head of cattle, depreciated greatly in value. The witnesses for the defendants testified that the fair market value of the land taken at the time it was taken was from $45 to $60 per acre, and that the value of the land not taken before the airport was built was from $50 to $65 per acre, and that it depreciated in value about 50% by reason of the construction and operation of the airport. The witnesses for the city testified that the value of the land taken was $40 per acre, but they gave no opinion as to the value of the land not taken or the depreciation in value of such land because of the construction and operation of the airport.

¶3 1. The city first argues that the trial court committed error in receiving evidence of acts done by the Government in diverting the water across the land not taken in constructing the airport, and in keeping their cattle scared and excited by the constant starting and landing of airplanes and in flying them low. The city contends that it is not liable for the acts of the Government after it surrendered possession of the condemned land. A similar contention was made in the companion case, above, and was disposed of adversely to the contention of the city. We have considered the authorities cited in the instant case in connection with our discussion of the question in that case. Our decision on the point there is controlling here.

¶4 2. The city contends that error was committed in the admission of evidence that the Government intended to build a control station for airplanes on the airport. But an examination of the record discloses that the evidence complained of was, on motion of the city, stricken, and the jury was admonished not to consider it. The evidence was not on a vital issue, and the instruction to disregard it cured the error, if any, in its admission. Spillers v. Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Coach Lines, 184 Okla. 507, 88 P.2d 642.

¶5 3. The city contends that instructions Nos. 2 and 5 are erroneous. By instruction No. 2 the jury was told that the city has the right to condemn private property for public use, but that it is required to pay all damages arising from the exercise of the right. Instruction No. 5 is as follows:

"In determining the damages or depreciation to the remaining property you should take into consideration the nature of the property, the purpose for which it is used and any other elements of damage or depreciation which would detract from the actual value of said property. After you have determined the value of the property taken and the damage, if any, to the property remaining, you should then render your verdict for the defendants accordingly."

¶6 When these instructions are considered in connection with instructions Nos. 3 and 4, which defined the measure of damages in accordance with our decisions (See State v. Adams, 187 Okla. 673, 105 P.2d 416; City of Tulsa v. Creekmore, 167 Okla. 298, 29 P.2d 101), we think the jury was properly instructed.

¶7 4. The city contends that the court committed error in excluding oral evidence offered by it while cross-examining Mock as to what he paid for the ranch a short time before the condemnation proceeding was filed. The deed, dated April 28, 1942, under which Mock took title to the ranch, and reciting a consideration of $30,000, or slightly more than $20 per acre, was introduced in evidence. The city made no offer of proof as to the actual consideration paid or that the consideration recited in the deed was not the true consideration. While this oral evidence was probably admissible (City of Tulsa v. Horwitz, 131 Okla. 63, 267 P. 852), we think under the circumstances its exclusion is not shown to have been prejudicial to the rights of the city. See authorities below.

¶8 5. The city finally argues that the verdict was excessive. We do not agree. The competent evidence would have justified a larger verdict.

¶9 We conclude that the city has failed to sustain the burden imposed upon it of pointing out wherein the admission or exclusion of the evidence referred to or the giving of said instructions probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice or constituted a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right so as to constitute reversible error. 12 O.S. 1941 §§ 78, 636; 22 O.S. 1941 §1068; Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98; Byrd v. McKoy, 183 Okla. 209, 81 P.2d 315; Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Fisher, 183 Okla. 638, 84 P.2d 22.

¶10 Affirmed.

¶11 GIBSON, C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, CORN, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. WELCH and DAVISON, JJ., dissent.

WELCH, J. (dissenting).

¶1 The effect of the decision is to award money damages to this landowner for the appearance over his land of Army airplanes and for the noises emanating therefrom, and for alleged flood damage caused by the manner in which the Government graded the grounds and constructed its runways. The airport and the airplanes are used by the Government in the present war. And such so-called land damage is awarded against the taxpayers of the city of Ardmore. I respectfully, but insistently, dissent.

¶2 It is true that not all of the damage awarded is of that character, but the above is the effect of the decision on that point by approving the admission of evidence upon the items of damage above set out.

¶3 The opinion points out that the city is lessor of a portion of the ground upon which the Government constructed and now operates its airport, but even so, I find no applicable rule which would tax against the citizens of Ardmore a damage, if there was any in fact, caused by our Government in the operation of airplanes in the war effort.