Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Franzen
| Decision Date | 03 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 12427.,12427. |
| Citation | 287 Ill. 346,122 N.E. 492 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. FRANZEN et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Du Page County Court; S. L. Rathje, Judge.
Petition by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company for condemnation of land against George E. Franzen and others. From a judgment dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.H. H. Field, C. S. Jefferson, and O. W. Dynes, all of Chicago, for appellant.
Rathje, Wesemann & Van Schaick, of Chicago (Francis W. Walker and George W. Thoma, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company filed a petition in the county court of Du Page county for the condemnation of certain land for railroad purposes. George E. Franzen, the owner, appeared and filed what is called a traverse, denying that the petitioner had attempted to agree with him before filing the petition as to the compensation and damages to be paid for the land, and denying the petitioner's authority in law to condemn the land sought to be taken. This traverse was accompanied by a motion to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction, and after a hearing upon evidence the court entered a judgment dismissing the petition at the petitioner's costs, finding that it was not authorized by law to take the property. The petitioner appealed.
The petition avers that the petitioner is, and has been for more than 25 years, a railway corporation organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, owning and operating a system of railroads extending from the city of Chicago west, northwest, and southwest through or into the states of Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsm, Minnesota, and other states, one of which lines extends north to the city of Milwaukee, Wis., and is known as the Chicago and Milwaukee division, and another, known as the Illinois division, extends from a point on the Chicago and Milwaukee division, in the city of Chicago, west to Savanna, on the Mississippi river; that the title to those portions of these lines of railroad lying within the state of Illinois was acquired under the statute of the state approved April 21, 1899, known as paragraph 218 of chapter 114 of Hurd's Statutes; that in connection with its said lines of railroad it owns and operates yards, depot grounds, and facilities used in connection with its lines of railroad in its business as a common carrier; that both within and without the corporate limits of the city of Chicago its said two lines intersect and connect with lines of railroad of other companies, and at such points cars, loaded and empty, are transferred and delivered from one railroad to the other and business is interchanged; that the Chicago and Milwaukee and Illinois divisions intersect and are connected at Pacific Junction, within the city of Chicago, and there cars, loaded and empty, are transferred, and through freight trains pass, from one line to the other; that it owns and operates extensive yards, particularly on the Illinois division at Galewood and Godfrey, for the classification of cars and the making up and breaking up of freight trains; that at and near the Godfrey yards there is a connection with the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, where cars are transferred and interchanged from one railroad to the other destined to industries and for points on connecting lines in the city of Chicago and east and west thereof, and at or near the Galewood yard there is a connection with the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad, operating what is known as the Inner Belt Line, where like connections and interchanges are made; that at the present time cars of freight coming to Chicago over the Chicago and Milwaukee division, destined for points on the Illinois division or west of the Mississippi river, or for delivery to the belt lines, and cars of freight coming to Chicago over the Illinois division, destined for delivery to the Chicago and Milwaukee division and beyond, are hauled by way of the Pacific Junction connection; that the Godfrey yards are very large, and provided with facilities for the classification, of cars and the making up and breaking up of trains preparatory to the forwarding of cars to their respective destinations, and cars are classified and trains are made up and broken up which have arrived or are to be forwarded over either division. The petition further shows that, to avoid the congestion which prevails on the route by way of Pacific Junction and at said yards and points of connection with said belt lines and other railroads, it is proposing to form a new connection between the Chicago and Milwaukee and the Illinois divisions, which shall extend from Techny, a station on the Chicago and Milwaukee division, to a point near Bensenville, a station on the Illinois division a short distance west of the Godfrey yards, the distance from Techny to Bensenville being approximately 14 miles by way of the proposed connection and 27 miles by way of Pacific Junction; that for the purpose of making such connection it has contracted with the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company for running rights over a portion of its railway from a point near Techny to a point near Bensenville; that, when the connections are made, trains and cars can pass from one of said divisions to the other, and avoid the congestion and longer haul by way of Pacific Junction, the interchange of cars between said divisions and the belt lines and other railroads may be made with greater economy and dispatch ans with less delay and inconvenience, the use, facility, and efficiency of the Galewood and Godfrey yards will be increased, and the petitioner's service as a common carrier improved; that for the purpose of such connection it is necessary to acquire land for right of way at and near Techny and at and near Bensenville; that the connecting track will also be used, maintained, and operated for the transfer and interchange of cars between the petitioner's said two divisions and the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, and that the formation of a new connection and the construction of connecting tracks are necessary for the convenient, economical, and efficient transaction of the petitioner's business as a common carrier and the accommodation and convenience of the public; that the use, control, and operation of the petitioner's railroad and system of transportation were taken over by the President of the United States under the proclamation dated December 26, 1917, and are now under federal control and subject to the provisions of an act of Congress to provide for the operation of transportation systems while under federal control, etc., and that the formation of the proposed new connection and the expenditure of money to defray the cost have been authorized by the proper officials administering the business of the petitioner under such federal control.
The objection that there had been no attempt before filing the petition to agree with the owner as to compensation and damages was expressly waived by the appellees.
The appellees insist that the petition was properly dismissed, because there was no allegation or proof that there was any law of the state of Wisconsin under which the petitioner could be organized as a corporation. The allegation was that the petitioner is a railway corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin, and the evidence was the certificate of the secretary of state of Wisconsin showing the articles of association of the Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, a statute approved April 10, 1865, ratifying and confirming the organization and declaring the company to be a corporation, and the resolution changing the name of the corporation to the present one. This was proof of the petitioner's existence as a corporation under the laws of Wisconsin.
The appellant, being a corporation organized under the laws of another state, has no authority to exercise the power of eminent domain by virtue of the general statute on that subject. Its only authority for that purpose is the act of 1899, which constitutes paragraph 218 of chapter 114 of Hurd's Statutes, and provides, in substance, that whenever a corporation organized under the laws of another state shall be in possession of a railroad situated in this state belonging to a corporation of this state, or shall own or control all of the capital stock of such corporation of this state, then the corporation of this state may sell and convey, and the corporation of the other state may purchase, in fee simple or otherwise, such railroad, and hold, in fee simple or otherwise, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Director of Finance v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Springfield, 53929
...use. In Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. Abens (1922), 306 Ill. 69, 137 N.E. 443, and in Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R.R. Co. v. Franzen (1919), 287 Ill. 346, 122 N.E. 492, we held that certain regulatory consents were not conditions precedent to a condemnation action. In this cas......
-
City of Chicago v. Vaccarro
...of Chicago, 389 Ill. 114, 59 N.E.2d 18; Illinois Iowa Power Co. v. Rhein, 369 Ill. 584, 17 N.E.2d 582; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Franzen, 287 Ill. 346, 122 N.E. 492. An abuse of such power, however, will not be tolerated, and if no necessity for its exercise exists, or if......
-
Chicago, N.S.&M.R. Co. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.
... ... 617]in the absence of a clear abuse of the right, and courts cannot inquire into the necessity or propriety of its exercise. Terre Haute & Peoria Railroad Co. v. Robbins, 247 Ill. 376, 93 N. E. 398;Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Franzen, 287 Ill. 346, 122 N. E. 492. The court did not err in refusing to dismiss the petition on the ground of want of necessity for the amount of land sought to be taken. It is contended by appellant that the court erred in refusing to admit evidence offered by appellant as to the present storage ... ...
- Franzen v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.