(DOWNLOAD) "Louis Annee v. State Indiana" by Supreme Court of Indiana No. 770S129. # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Louis Annee v. State Indiana
- Author : Supreme Court of Indiana No. 770S129.
- Release Date : January 21, 1971
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 54 KB
Description
HUNTER, J. ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING - We have received a petition for rehearing from both parties in this case. Appellant's
petition contains no new arguments except for a claim that our decision raises a conflict between two doctrines. One is the
rule that the Supreme Court will not disturb an award for damages in a condemnation suit when the amount of the award is within
the bounds of the probative evidence. The other rule is that the jury's view of the premises condemned is not to be considered
by the jury as evidence. We fail to see how these two doctrines are necessarily conflicting. Although the view is not to be
considered evidence, it does allow the jurors to better understand the testimony given by the witnesses at trial. The State asks that we make provision for interest allegedly due the State on moneys drawn by the defendants over and above
the amount awarded as damages by the trial court, and also that ten per cent (10%) damages be assessed per A.P. 15(F). This
Curt is of the opinion that the moneys due the State cannot be deemed a judgment for money within the meaning of IC 1971,
24-5-1-2 (Ind.Ann.Stat. 19-12-102 [1964 Repl.]). The award was for the defendants, not the plaintiff. The defendants
drew three hundred ninety thousand eight hundred thirty-one dollars ($390,831) of the court appointed appraisers total award
of four hundred twenty-eight thousand dollars ($428,000). The defendants were ordered to refund the difference between the
amount previously drawn and the amount awarded by the trial court but this could not be considered a money judgment for the
State. The State has not referred us to any case where an ordered refund such as occurred in this case was construed as a
money judgment allowing interest upon it. In addition, we do not consider it a proper policy of the State to collect interest
from its taxpayers in an instance such as this.