{
  "id": 8720233,
  "name": "Ernest W. Rowley v. Arkansas State Highway Commission",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rowley v. Arkansas State Highway Commission",
  "decision_date": "1967-04-24",
  "docket_number": "5-4201",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "242 Ark. 419"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "413 S.W.2d 876"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 285,
    "char_count": 3839,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.262683731656366e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4783597422089087
    },
    "sha256": "b33dcad81b0f8ee339541f387c234482b746f42699efb91ba829c87c56282356",
    "simhash": "1:cb810a076c2ed682",
    "word_count": 649
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:12.038660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ernest W. Rowley v. Arkansas State Highway Commission"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Paul Ward, Justice.\nThis is a'n action where the Arkansas Highway Commission (appellee) sued to condemn, for highway construction purposes, land belonging to Ernest W. Rowley (appellant). The decisive issue on appeal requires an interpretation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 76-536 (Repl. 1957) which is \u00a7 3 of Act 115 of the Acts, of 1953. Since the facts out of which the issue arises are not in dispute they will be briefly stated.\nAppellee\u2019s complaint, filed November 1, 1963, sought to take the fee in .04 acres, of land; at the same time appellee deposited in court $2,000 as the estimated value, and; filed a declaration of taking as. provided in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 76-534 (Repl. 1957). Also on the same day the court entered an Order of Possession giving ap-pellee \u201cthe right of immediate entry onto the possession of the property ...\u201d On December 4, 1963 appellant answered, stating the $2,000 was. grossly inadequate and asking for just compensation. Later, at appellant\u2019s request he was given permission by the court to withdraw the $2,000 deposit.\nOn July 14, 1965 appellee filed an Amendment to its Complaint and also an Amendment to its Declaration of Taking, asking the trial court to allow it to take only a part of the land originally sought. Then appellant filed a Motion to strike the amended complaint. A response was. filed by appellee, and, on February 7, 1966, the trial court overruled the Motion to Strike, stating appellant would have the right to prove any damage done to the land not taken.\nOn March 15, 1966 a jury was impaneled to determine the value of the land (as reduced by the amended complaint. The jury fixed the amount at $1,000. In entering* the judgment for said amount in favor of appellant the trial court also entered judgment for $1,000 against appellant and in favor of appellee.\nAppellant now prosecutes this appeal from the last portion of the above judgment, relying only on the following point:\n\u201cThe trial court erred in permitting the appellee to abandon a portion of the lands originally taken. \u2019 \u2019\nIt is. our conclusion that appellant is correct and that the trial court erred in allowing appellee to amend its original complaint and declaration of taking.\nThe statute first referred to above, \u00a7 76-536, reads as follows, in all parts, pertinent here:\n\u201cImmediately upon the making of the deposit provided for in Section 5 [\u00a7 76-538] title to said lands in fee simple .. .s\u00edmil vest in the persons entitled thereto ...\u201d (Emphasis owrs.)\nAppellee makes no contention that \u00a7 76-538 mentioned above was not complied with.\nAppellee attempts, to evade the plain wording of the statute by citing numerous decisions from this and other jurisdictions, which concededly hold that the con-demnor can amend its complaint to take less property than first asked for. However, they have no persuasive value here because they were decided before the enactment of the statute here relied on by appellant. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 76-536 (Repl. 1957) is \u00a7 3 of Act No. 115 of 1953. Prior to 1953 this state had no statute similar to the one just mentioned, nor does it appear that the cited decision from other jurisdictions were confronted with any such statute.\nIt is argued, also, by appellee that it would be against public policy to require the State to purchase more property than it needs or can use. This, argument, however, is answered by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 76-548 (Repl. 1957) which gives the Highway Commission the right to sell any real property \u201cwhich is no longer necessary or desirable for State Highway purposes ...\u201d\nThe cause is therefore reversed and remanded for further actions consistent with this, opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Paul Ward, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gordon and Gordon, for appellant.",
      "John R. Thompson and Joe T. Gunter, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ernest W. Rowley v. Arkansas State Highway Commission\n5-4201\n413 S. W. 2d 876\nOpinion Delivered April 24, 1967\nGordon and Gordon, for appellant.\nJohn R. Thompson and Joe T. Gunter, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 441,
  "last_page_order": 444
}