People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Keligian

VALLÉE, J.

Proceeding in eminent domain. Defendants Robert J. and Margaret L. Hays appeal from the interlocutory judgment.

The cause is here on a settled statement. Pursuant to rule 7 of the Rules on Appeal, defendants served and filed a condensed statement in narrative

form

of such portions of the oral proceedings as they deemed material to the determination of the points on appeal, and stated as the point to be raised by them on appeal that “the compensation awarded is so grossly disproportionate as to the true market value war

[773]

ranted by the facts as to shock the

the

sense of justice and is wholly unsupported by the Plaintiffs’ evidence and against the weight of all evidence.” Defendants are thus precluded from presenting any ground for reversal other than the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.

1

Defendants were the owners of Parcel 18. The jury found the value of the property sought to be condemned and all improvements thereon pertaining to the realty to be $17,000. Defendant Robert J. Hays testified the fair market value of Parcel 18 was $29,438.71, stating the reasons for his opinion and introducing in evidence a number of photographs of the property and a map. Mr. Welbourne, called by plaintiff, qualified as an expert appraiser and testified that in his opinion the fair market value of Parcel 18 was $17,000. He pointed out on a map received in evidence 11 sales he said he studied and examined in order to assist him in arriving at the fair market value of defendants’ property. On objection of defendants he was not allowed to state the sales price as to nine of the sales he had studied. The court and jury viewed defendants’ property and all the properties Mr. Welbourne had testified he used in arriving at his opinion.

The testimony of Mr. Welbourne together with the jury’s view is sufficient to sustain the verdict. The testimony of one witness who is entitled to credit is sufficient for proof of any fact in a civil ease even though that testimony be uncorroborated and contradicted by the testimony of any number of other witnesses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1844;