Chicago & G.W.R. Co. v. Wedel

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCRAIG
Citation32 N.E. 547,144 Ill. 9
PartiesCHICAGO & G. W. R. CO. v. WEDEL.
Decision Date23 November 1892

144 Ill. 9
32 N.E. 547

CHICAGO & G. W. R. CO.
v.
WEDEL.
1

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 23, 1892.


Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Action on the case by Carl Wedel against the Chicago & Great Western Railroad Company to recover damages caused by the construction and maintenance of defendant's road in front of plaintiff's premises. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.


[144 Ill. 11]H. S. Boutell and K. K. Knapp, for appellant.

Partridge & Partridge, for appellee.


CRAIG, J.

This was an action of trespass on the case brought by Carl Wedel against the Chicago & Great Western Railroad Company to recover damages caused to the plaintiff's property by the construction and operation of defendant's railroad on Rebecca street, in Chicago, in front of the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff owned a lot, upon which he resided, 24 feet wide, fronting on Rebecca street. The street runs east and west, and the house is on the north side of the street, fronting south. In the construction of the road the defendant threw up an embankment, crossing Rebecca street diagonally from the southeast to the northwest, in front of plaintiff's premises. The embankment was shown to be about four feet higher than the natural surface of the ground, and most of the street in front of the premises was occupied by the roadbed and tracks of the defendant's road. It is claimed in the argument that, under the declaration in this case, no recovery can be had for a depreciation in the market value of the plaintiff's property caused by a legitimate construction and operation of the road, as no general damages or general depreciation of the market value of the property was alleged. Whether the declaration was technically sufficient to allow proof of a permanent injury to the premises, and a recovery for a depreciation of the market value of the property, we shall not stop to consider. If the averments of the declaration were [144 Ill. 12]insufficient in this regard, objection should have been made to the introduction of the evidence on the trial, where the difficulty could have been avoided by an amendment to the declaration. But no objection was interposed; but, on the other hand, the case was tried by both parties on the theory that, if plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, he was entitled to a recovery for the general depreciation of the market value of the property caused by the legitimate construction and operation of the road; under such circumstances the objection now interposed comes too late. After the plaintiff had closed his evidence, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 24 Marzo 1913
    ...304, 53 N.E. 27; Iron Co. v. Brown, 171 N.Y. 488, 64 N.E. 194; Lynch v. Johnson, 109 Mich. 640, 67 N.W. 908; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Wedel, 144 Ill. 9, 32 N.E. 547; Chamberlain v. Woodin, (Ida.) 23 P. 178; Runkle v. Burnham, 153 U.S. 222; Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 152 U.S. 683; Denver &c. R. Co. v. ......
  • Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Durack
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 19 Mayo 1908
    ...nonsuit, the defendant waived it by offering [Ohio St. 251]evidence on his part.’ See, also, Chicago & Great Western Railroad Co. v. Wedel, 144 Ill. 9, 32 N. E. 547. The Supreme Court of Michigan in Lynch v. Johnson, 109 Mich. 640, 67 N. W. 908, says that ‘by putting in proofs after the den......
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Calumet Stock Farm
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 18 Diciembre 1901
    ...any event, this evidence did the appellant no harm, as the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Railroad Co. v. Wedel, 144 Ill. 9, 32 N. E. 547;Doll v. People, 145 Ill. 253, 34 N. E. 413. The appellant, upon the trial, called as a witness one Freshwater, who gave materi......
  • Isham v. Cudlip, Gen. No. 11519
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Enero 1962
    ...a different approach on appeal: Humphrey v. Terry et al. (1955) 6 Ill.App.2d 42, 126 N.E.2d 507; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Wedel (1892) 144 Ill. 9, 32 N.E. Further, under the agreement of April 28, 1917 between William Cudlip, the defendants' predecessor, and Herbert Isham, the plaintiff's ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 24 Marzo 1913
    ...304, 53 N.E. 27; Iron Co. v. Brown, 171 N.Y. 488, 64 N.E. 194; Lynch v. Johnson, 109 Mich. 640, 67 N.W. 908; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Wedel, 144 Ill. 9, 32 N.E. 547; Chamberlain v. Woodin, (Ida.) 23 P. 178; Runkle v. Burnham, 153 U.S. 222; Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 152 U.S. 683; Denver &c. R. Co. v. ......
  • Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Durack
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 19 Mayo 1908
    ...nonsuit, the defendant waived it by offering [Ohio St. 251]evidence on his part.’ See, also, Chicago & Great Western Railroad Co. v. Wedel, 144 Ill. 9, 32 N. E. 547. The Supreme Court of Michigan in Lynch v. Johnson, 109 Mich. 640, 67 N. W. 908, says that ‘by putting in proofs after the den......
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Calumet Stock Farm
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 18 Diciembre 1901
    ...any event, this evidence did the appellant no harm, as the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Railroad Co. v. Wedel, 144 Ill. 9, 32 N. E. 547;Doll v. People, 145 Ill. 253, 34 N. E. 413. The appellant, upon the trial, called as a witness one Freshwater, who gave materi......
  • Isham v. Cudlip, Gen. No. 11519
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Enero 1962
    ...a different approach on appeal: Humphrey v. Terry et al. (1955) 6 Ill.App.2d 42, 126 N.E.2d 507; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Wedel (1892) 144 Ill. 9, 32 N.E. Further, under the agreement of April 28, 1917 between William Cudlip, the defendants' predecessor, and Herbert Isham, the plaintiff's ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT