respondents entitled to interest from date petitioner “acquired the right to possession,” viewed as date petitioner paid to clerk of court “the amount of damages assessed by commissioners” and not “the date petitioner instituted this proceeding”
How later courts described this case
- respondents entitled to interest from date petitioner “acquired the right to possession,” viewed as date petitioner paid to clerk of court “the amount of damages assessed by commissioners” and not “the date petitioner instituted this proceeding”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Per Curiam.
RESPONDENTS’ APPEAL.
Each of respondents’ assignments of error has received careful consideration. Conceding there may be technical error in certain of the court’s rulings with reference to the admissibility of evidence, a careful reading of the evidence fails to show respondents were prejudiced thereby. Upon the entire record, we find no error of such nature as to justify a new trial.
PETITIONER’S APPEAL.
On June 8, 1962, petitioner paid into the office of the clerk of the superior court the sum of $6,975.00, the amount of damages assessed by the commissioners. Thereby petitioner acquired the right to “enter, take possession of, and hold said lands, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, and until the final judgment rendered on said appeal.” G.S. 40-19;
Topping v. Board of Education,
249 N.C. 291 , 106 S.E. 2d 502 . In accordance with petitioner’s said statutory right, the clerk entered an order “that the petitioner be and it is hereby placed and put into possession of the lands and premises described in the petition.” For procedure in condemnation proceedings instituted by the State Highway Commission, see G.S. 136-103
et seq.,
and
Highway Commission v. Industrial Center,
263 N.C. 230 , 139 S.E. 2d 253 .
Applying the rule established in
Winston-Salem v. Wells,
249 N.C. 148 , 105 S.E. 2d 435 , respondents were entitled to judgment for $3,500.00 and interest thereon from June 8, 1962, the date petitioner acquired the right to possession. The court was in error in allowing interest from April 2, 1962, the date petitioner instituted this proceeding. Hence, there should be subtracted from the principal of the
*160
judgment an amount equal to the interest on $3,500.00 from April 2, 1962, to June 8, 1962. It is ordered that the judgment be and is so modified; and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
On respondents’ appeal: No error.
On petitioner’s appeal: Modified and affirmed.