James H. Collingwood, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, Appellant

Kansas Supreme Court1957-10-25No. No. 40,334

181 Kan. 838317 P.2d 400

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to consolidate all separately docketed appeals of owners with separate interests in the same parcel and to try them as a single action, rather than as separate actions before separate juries.

This case concerns whether multiple property owners with separate interests in the same parcel of land must have their individual appeals from an eminent domain appraisal award tried together as one action or separately as distinct actions. The court initially decided the matter one way but, upon rehearing, reversed its prior legal conclusions. The court determined that when multiple parties with different interests in the same property appeal an appraiser's award, those appeals cannot be severed and must instead be consolidated and tried together as a single action before one jury addressing the single question of whether the award was sufficient.

The court withdrew and vacated its earlier holdings that had reached contrary conclusions in both this case and a related case involving similar issues. The court then reversed the district court judgment and instructed it to consolidate all the separately filed appeals and proceed to trial of the consolidated matter as a single action, while affirming all other aspects of the prior district court decision.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether multiple property owners with separate interests in the same land can have separate appeals from an eminent domain appraisal award tried individually or must be consolidated
Construction of the statute governing severance of appeals in eminent domain proceedings
Whether the question before the district court was consolidation for trial or severance of already-filed appeals

Procedural posture

The Kansas Supreme Court granted a rehearing in a related case to reconsider whether separate appeals in an eminent domain proceeding should be tried jointly or separately, which required it to withdraw and vacate portions of its prior opinions in both the related case and this case, and to reverse the district court judgment accordingly.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fatzer, J.:

On May 15, 1957, we granted a rehearing in Moore v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 181 Kan. 51, 310 P. 2d 199, and ordered that the case be rebriefed and reargued at the June 1957 session, limited to the single question of whether separate appeals of owners of separate interests in the same tract of land who appeal from an award of appraisers in an eminent domain proceeding should bé tried as a single action by one jury, or as separate actions by separate juries. On that same day we entered an order recalling the mandate of this court issued April 29, 1957, to the district court of Osage County affirming that court in Collingwood v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 181 Kan. 43, 310 P. 2d 211.

Following reargument of Moore v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, supra, we concluded we were in error in our original determination of points of law announced in ¶¶ 1 and 2 of the syllabus and the corresponding portions of that opinion, and have withdrawn and vacated those paragraphs and that portion of the opinion to which they relate. See our holding on rehearing in Moore v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 181 Kan. 840, 317 P. 2d 384, this day decided:

“The record examined upon a rehearing where the Kansas Turnpike Authority appealed from an order of the district court denying its motion to consolidate for trial as a single action the question of the sufficiency of the award of appraisers in an eminent domain proceeding presented by separate appeals of owners of separate interests in the same parcel of land, and held: (1) The question before the district court on the motion of the Authority was not whether the separate appeals of the landowner, the tenant, and the Authority should be consolidated for trial, but whether they could be severed when appeal is taken; (2) G. S. 1955 Supp., 26-102 construed to mean that separate appeals of owners of separate interests in the same tract of land who appeal from an award of appraisers in an eminent domain proceeding cannot be severed, and that any one or all such appeals bring to the district court in its entirety the sole question of the sufficiency of the award to be tried as a single action; (3) HII 1 and 2 of the syllabus and the corresponding portions of the opinion in Moore v. Kansas Turnpike Authoity, 181 Kan. 51, 310 P. 2d 199 are withdrawn and vacated; and (4) under the facts and circumstances of this case the court should now consolidate the separately docketed appeals for trial as a single action.” (Syl. If 1.)

Paragraphs 1 and 4 (a) of the syllabus in the original Collingwood case, supra, were decided upon the holdings of ¶¶ 1 and 2 of the syllabus and corresponding portions of the opinion in the original Moore case (181 Kan. 51, 310 P. 2d 199), and since we have withdrawn and vacated ¶¶ 1 and 2 of the syllabus of the original Moore case, supra, the same withdrawal and vacation applies to ¶¶ 1 and 4 (a) of the syllabus and corresponding portions of the opinion in the original Collingwood case, supra, and the same are hereby withdrawn and vacated.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment is reversed with instructions to the district court to proceed with the trial of all appeals as a single action in accordance with the views herein expressed. All other holdings in Collingwood v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 181 Kan. 43, 310 P. 2d 211, are adhered to.

It is so ordered.

Price and Schroeder, JJ., dissenting.