Manhattan Building Co. v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 52 Wash. 226
• 100 P. 330
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1099

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain — Pleadings — Abutting Owners — Cross-Complaint. The act, Laws of 1905, p. 84, does not require, in proceedings to condemn property for a regrade of city streets, any answer from the original parties to the suit, and a cross-complaint filed by such a party is properly struck out.</p> <p>Same — Trial—Jury Trial — Review—Discretion. Laws 1905, p. 87, § 7, providing for separate juries to determine the damages in condemnation proceedings by a city for street purposes, if demanded, “and the court shall deem it proper,” leaves it discretionary to grant separate trials, and the action of the court will be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.</p> <p>Same — Abuse- op Discretion. It, is .not an abuse of discretion to refuse a,demand for a separate jury in such- a case, asked on the ground that the jurors had, after numerous other trials, formed an opinion which it would take evidence to remove, where prejudice does not appear from the verdict returned, and the trial court had abundant opportunity to test the fairness of the jury.</p> <p>Same — Jury—Challenge—Joining in Challenge. Under Bal. Code, § 4979, providing that defendants representing different interests shall join in their peremptory challenges to jurors, an abutting owner having a separate trial in condemnation proceedings is not entitled to exercise separate challenges.</p> <p>Same — Examination of Jury. Where a jury in condemnation proceedings is empanelled to try the whole issue of compensation to different defendants, an abutter, upon entering upon a separate trial, is not entitled to again examine a juror as to his qualifications by reason of matters occurring since the jury was empanelled, even where the party offered to show that the juror had formed opinions which it would take evidence to remove, there being no offer to show disqualifications by extrinsic evidence.</p> <p>Appeal — -Preservation of Grounds — Exceptions. Error in commenting on the evidence is waived if not excepted to.