Chicago v. Hock

• Decision Date: 13 November 1886
• Citation: 118 Ill. 587,9 N.E. 205
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. HOCK and others.

118 Ill. 587

9 N.E. 205

CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

v.HOCK and others.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

November 13, 1886.

Appeal from superior court, Cook county.

E. Waller, for appellant.

Francis Lackner and Geo. F. Blake, for appellees.

CRAIG, J.

This was a proceeding instituted by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company in the superior court of Cook county to condemn, for railroad purposes, lot 7, block 18, in Carpenter's addition to Chicago, under the law of eminent domain. The title to the property was in William P. Hock and Wilhelmina Hock, his wife. Others who were made parties to the proceeding claim an interest in or lien on the premises. All the parties, in open court, waived a jury, and agreed to a trial of the cause by the court. The court heard the evidence, and entered on the record a finding and judgmentas follows: ‘The court, being sufficiently advised, doth find that the value of the property in controversy, to-wit, lot 7, in block 18, in Carpenter's addition to Chicago, is the sum of $10,000. The court also finds that the value of the frame buildings situated in the rear of said lot is the sum of $2,500. The court also finds that the value of the partially constructed brick building upon the front part of said lot, as a part of a building to be completed upon said lot, including the present cost of the construction thereof, and the respondent's own trouble and loss of time in the preparation of said building, and for loss of use of capital invested therein, for architect's fees, the amount for which the respondent is liable to contractors, and the inconvenience and cost of the removal of his business from said premises, the sum of $5,500; making a total compensation for all damages resulting from the taking of said premises the sum of $18,000. Therefore it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the full compensation for the taking of the said premises, and for all damages to the respondents, William P. Hock and Wilhelmina Hock, his wife, shall be the sum of $18,000, of which sum $966 is to be paid to Gustav Wolff, in full of his claim upon the premises; * * * that petitioner may enter upon said premises, and shall have exclusive possession thereof, for the use and purpose of said railroad company, upon the payment of said sum of $966 to the said Wolff, and the sum of $17,034 to the said William P. Hock.’

Two grounds are urged for a reversal of the judgment by the railway company: First, the judgment is claimed to be excessive; second, that the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause in the absence of a jury.

No complaint is made in the argument in regard to the value the court placed upon the lot itself, nor is any particular fault found with the valuation of $2,500, which the court, under the evidence, placed upon the frame buildings in the rear of the premises, but the amount ($5,500) allowed by the court on account of the brick building in the front of the lot, which was partially constructed, appellant claims is in excess of a just compensation. We have carefully examined the evidence bearing upon this item, and, while the amount allowed, in view of all the evidence, may seem somewhat large, still there was evidence introduced on the trial which might justify the amount fixed by the court, and we are not prepared to say that the amount allowed was so excessive as to authorize an appellate court to reverse upon that ground alone. The court saw all the witnesses, and heard them testify on the stand, and was thus better prepared to determine what weight should be given to the evidence of each witness than we are from an examination of the evidence on paper. It has been suggested in the argument that the court, in assessing damages, heard and took into consideration evidence of the loss of profits sustained by Hock in the interruption of his business for three months. In the finding of the court, incorporated in the record, no mention whatever is made in regard to loss of profits, and from the judgment and finding it is evident that element formed no part of the judgment. The inconvenience and costs of removal of the business from the premises condemned are mentioned as elements of...