[DOWNLOAD] "B. H. Dorroh Et Ux. v. Jefferson County" by Supreme Court of Alabama # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: B. H. Dorroh Et Ux. v. Jefferson County
- Author : Supreme Court of Alabama
- Release Date : January 24, 1956
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice. This cause originated by the application for an order of condemnation filed in the Probate Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, in which Jefferson County sought to acquire the property of the appellants for the purpose of
widening the Birmingham-Atlanta highway. The application was granted by the probate court, whereupon commissioners were appointed
to assess the damages and compensation to which appellants were entitled. Following the commissioners' report, and the payment
of the award into court, an order of condemnation was entered by the probate court. The appellants then filed an appeal to
the circuit court from the decree of condemnation of the probate court, under Title 19, 17, Code of Alabama 1940,
and demanded a trial by a jury. A trial was had, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the appellants in the amount of $1,250,
and a judgment entered accordingly. Appellants filed a timely motion for a new trial, and after hearing arguments on the motion,
the trial Judge overruled it, and the property owners appealed. Appellants' most seriously argued contention on this appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new
trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is inadequate. Appellants contend that the verdict is so inadequate as to
indicate bias, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motives against them. In support of this contention, appellants submitted
as part of the motion for new trial an affidavit by the appellant, B. H. Dorroh, that shortly before the trial in the circuit
court, a newspaper article had appeared in the local paper giving an account of a real estate swindle perpetrated by one with
the same surname as the appellant, and that it is reasonable to believe that the jury could, and probably did, assume that
the swindler and appellant were one and the same person. There was no evidence that any of the jury had read or been influenced
by the newspaper article.