Mcdonald v. English
| Decision Date | 31 January 1877 |
| Citation | 1877 WL 9530,85 Ill. 232 |
| Parties | ROBERT D. MCDONALDv.JOSEPH G. ENGLISH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. OLIVER L. DAVIS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. MANN & CALHOUN, and Mr. F. W. BOOKWALTER, for the appellant.
Mr. E. S. TERRY, and Messrs. LINDSEY & KIMBROUGH, for the appellee.
Appellant sued appellee, in an action on the case, for a nuisance. The alleged nuisance was this: Appellant owns a three-story building, of which the lower story is for business purposes, such as retailing goods, etc., the second story for offices, and the third story is a hall for the use of secret societies. The building fronts on Main street, the principal business street in Danville, and comes to the line of the street. Appellee, as president of the First National Bank of Danville, caused a building for the bank to be erected immediately east of appellant's building, fronting on the same street, in front of which he caused to be placed, and has since maintained, stone steps, of the heighth of two feet and four inches, extending into the sidewalk, that runs in front of the buildings, three feet and seven inches, and to the east of the steps an airway, surrounded by iron railing two feet and four inches in heighth, extending into the sidewalk three feet and nine inches, and, also, at the south-east corner of the building, iron steps, extending into the sidewalk four feet and one inch. The west end of the stone steps is about eighteen inches east of the entrance to appellant's stairway. The sidewalk, at this point, is twelve feet and one inch in width, and at all points in front of the bank building it is eight feet or more in width beyond the obstructions. The claim is, that these obstructions interfere with the convenient access of appellant's building, and render it less public, and thereby detract from its rental value. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee. The court overruled appellant's motion for a new trial, and gave judgment upon the verdict.
Appellee was permitted to give in evidence, on the trial, an ordinance of the city of Danville, to the effect This, it is insisted, was erroneous. We do not perceive how appellant could have been prejudiced by it, for, as it seems to us, so far as it could have had any effect upon the jury, it must have been in his favor, since the only thing it tends to prove is, that the obstructions were unauthorized, because of their extending into the sidewalk beyond the limit prescribed by the ordinance. Moreover, the court gave this instruction in regard to it:
“The court instructs the jury, on behalf of the plaintiff, that, if they believe, from the evidence, that he, the plaintiff, was injured by the defendant, as claimed by him, the said plaintiff, then the said defendant is not protected by the city ordinance introduced in evidence.”
The ordinance might, probably, under the circumstances, have been well excluded upon the ground of irrelevancy; but, inasmuch as we can not believe that it in the slightest degree prejudiced appellant, the error in its admission does not authorize a reversal of the judgment.
Appellant asked the court to instruct the jury that, in the event the proof showed an obstruction of the street, he was entitled to recover nominal damages, although it was not proven that he had sustained actual damages; and the refusal of the court to so instruct, appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Droste v. Kerner
...v. Semet Solvay Co., 227 Ill. 501 (81 N.E. 538); Guttery v. Glenn, supra; City of Chicago v. Union Building Ass'n, 102 Ill. 379; McDonald v. English, 85 Ill. 232.' 305 Ill. at 302, 137 N.E. at The cases relied upon by the majority and the line of authority of which they are a part rest upon......
-
Young v. Bryco Arms
...has shown that "he will suffer special damage, different in degree and kind from that suffered by the public at large"); McDonald v. English, 85 Ill. 232, 236 (1877) (a plaintiff must show "special injury" to maintain an action for an obstruction to the We need not, however, determine wheth......
-
Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United Workmen of Iowa v. Graham
...company whose business may be incidentally affected by the operations of the defendant organization. Beach, Inj. section 13; McDonald v. English, 85 Ill. 232; Springer v. Walters, 139 Ill. 419; Slatten Des Moines Valley R. Co., 29 Iowa 148, 4 Am Rep. 205. To entitle the plaintiff to this pr......
-
Cuneo Press, Inc. v. Warshawsky & Co.
...and in such case the special injury is the gist of the action, and unless it is alleged and proved there can be no recovery. (McDonald v. English, 85 Ill. 232. * * *' (Italics In Klumpp v. Rhoads, 362 Ill. 412, at page 416, 200 N.E. 153, at page 154, the court says: 'When a business creates......