Indiana, I.&I.R. Co. v. Conness
| Decision Date | 19 February 1900 |
| Citation | 184 Ill. 178,56 N.E. 402 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | INDIANA, I. & I. R. CO. v. CONNESS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Lasalle county court; H. W. Johnson, Judge.
Petition by the Indiana, Illinois & Iowa Railroad Company against John W. Conness for the assessment of damages for land taken by petitioner for a right of way. From the judgment assessing damages, petitioner appeals. Reversed.
Cary & Walker and Reeves & Boys, for appellant.
Trainor & Browne, for appellee.
Appellant filed its petition in the county court of Lasalle county to ascertain the compensation to be paid to appellee, John W. Conness, for a strip of land, containing about five acres, taken from the north side of the S. W. 1/4 of section 24, township 31, range 2, in said county. The defendant filed his cross petition, which, as amended, alleged that he was the owner of said S. W. 1/4; that his mother, Mary Conness, owned a life estate in the adjoining N. W. 1/4 of said section, and that he and his brother, Benjamin F. Conness, were the owners, in equal shares, of the remainder after said life estate; that he and his said brother had leased from their mother her said life estate in said N. W. 1/4, and held said leasehold estate as tenants in common, and farmed said N. W. 1/4 as such tenants in common; and that his interest in said N. W. 1/4 was damaged by taking the strip of land on the S. W. 1/4. There was a trial, and the jury returned a verdict fixing the compensation to be paid to defendant for the land actually taken at $750, and the damages to the S. W. 1/4, and all other tracts of land owned by him, or in which he had an interest, and which were described in the petition and cross petition, and not actually taken for the right of way, at $2,500. On a motion for a new trial the defendant remitted $200 from the amount awarded as compensation for the land actually taken, and judgment was entered for the balance.
It is alleged as error that the court overruled petitioner's demurrer to the cross petition, and admitted evidence as to damages, generally, to the N. W. 1/4. We do not think that there was any error in overruling the demurrer. The defendant owned the entire fee of the S. W. 1/4 from which the right of way was taken, and the remainder after the life estate of his mother in the undivided one-half of the adjoining N. W. 1/4. The estate in remainder in the N. W. 1/4 was a vested interest, the value of which could be determined; and, if that estate was damaged, we see no good reason why the damages might not be assessed in this proceeding. The other owners in the N. W. 1/4 were not parties to the suit, and none of their land was actually taken. If their interest was damaged in any way, that fact could not be considered in this suit, but they would be left to their action at law. Stetson v. Railroad Co., 75 Ill. 74;White v. Railroad Co., 154 Ill. 620, 39 N. E. 270. It is not essential to the jurisdiction of the court that all the owners shall be brought into court, even as to land taken, but compensation may be ascertained separately. Bowman v. Railway Co., 102 Ill. 459.
The case was one, however, which required care to keep the interests of the parties and the damages separate, so that the petitioner might not be compelled to respond twice for the same damages. The lands were already separated as to interest and estate, and the only evidence admissible as to the N. W. 1/4 was concerning defendant's estate therein. If his interest in the N. W. 1/4 was in any way affected by being separated from his other lands, it required careful discrimination, and the limiting of the evidence to his interest; and in this respect the court erred. It appeared that the defendant and his mother and brother lived together as a family on the place, and he testified that the lease from his mother was oral to himself and his brother. Counsel on both sides say that it was subject to the statute of frauds, and voidable. At any rate, he furnished no basis whatever for the assessment of damages to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Conservation v. Franzen
...less than full ownership in the remaining part. See C. & E.R.R. Co. v. Dresel, 110 Ill. 89, 92 (1884); I., I. & I.R.R. Co. v. Conness, 184 Ill. 178, 182, 56 N.E. 402 (1900). See also Annot. 95 A.L.R.2d 887, sec. The phrase 'interest in property' as used in section 11 does not clearly requir......
-
Conness v. Indiana, I.&I.R. Co.
...case has been before this court on appeal from a former hearing, in which the present appellee was appellant, and is reported in 184 Ill. 178, 56 N. E. 402. In the opinion of the court, and with a view to a further hearing of the case, we said (page 180, 184 Ill., and pages 402, 403, 56 N. ......
-
Dowie v. Chicago, W.&N.S. Ry. Co.
... ... Bowman v. Venice & Carondelet Railway Co., 102 Ill. 459;Indiana, Illinois & Iowa Railroad Co. v. Conness, 184 Ill. 178, 56 N. E. 402. In the latter case it was ... ...
-
People v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago
...shall be made parties to a single proceeding. Bowman v. Venice & Carondelet Railway Co., 102 Ill. 459;Indiana, Illinois & Iowa Railroad Co. v. Conness, 184 Ill. 178, 56 N. E. 402. That rights of one not made a party are not affected by the proceeding is clear, and so declared by the above a......