Chicago Ry Co v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 30 November 1896 |
| Docket Number | No. 11,11 |
| Citation | 41 L.Ed. 511,17 S.Ct. 129,164 U.S. 454 |
| Parties | CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. v. CITY OF CHICAGO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
E. E. Osborn, for plaintiff in error.
John S. Miller, for defendant in error.
This was a proceeding instituted by the city of Chicago in the circuit court of Cook county, Ill., for the condemnation of certain real estate. The object of the proposed condemnation was to open West Taylor street, in that city.
The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company and the Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburg Railroad Company, being the owners of the property, appeared and filed a cross petition, in which they alleged:
'That in addition to the land described in the above-entitled cause, which will be taken for the opening of the street mentioned in said petition, they are the owners of lands on each side of the said strip of land to be taken for said street, which land is used by them as a right of way for their railroad tracks necessary in the carrying on of their railroad business; that the taking of the said strip of land mentioned in said petition for the opening of said street will damage the other land owned by said companies, and used by them as right of way for their main tracks through the city of Chicago, and for side tracks used by them in carrying on their business as common carriers.
'Your cross petitioners further show that the taking of said land, and the opening of said street across the same, will necessitate the construction by your cross petitioners of approaches to such crossings, the planking of their tracks, the draining of the side crossings and the adjoining land owned by said petitioners, the erection of gates at said crossing, and the keeping of a flagman thereat, all of which will cause the said cross petitioners great expense, to the great damage of your cross petitioners.
'Wherefore your cross petitioners say that the damage to your cross petitioners, to their business, and to the lands of your cross petitioners not proposed to be taken in the said petition, and all damages caused by the opening of said street and the taking of said lands therefor, be assessed as by the statute in such case made and provided.'
By consent of the parties, entered of record, the cause was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury. The court found and adjudged that the just compensation to be paid by the city for the taking of the property described for the opening of West Taylor street was one dollar.
Thereupon the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company moved, without stating the grounds for its motion, that a new trial be awarded. That motion was overruled, the company excepting; and it was adjudged and decreed 'that the sum of money awarded by the court by its finding to the owner of said lot, piece, or parcel of land and property is a just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Betts v. Brady
... ... for the respective counties, and the several judges thereof, the Superior Court of Baltimore City, the Court of Common Pleas of that city, the Circuit Court and Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore ... ...
-
Adkins v. City Of Richmond
...or authority of the United States was "specially set up or claimed, " and denied by the state court. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 164 U. S. 454, 17 Sup. Ct. 129, 41 L. Ed. 511; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler Co., 166 U. S. 648, 17 Sup. Ct. 709, 41 L. Ed. 1149; and Rev. St. U. S. § ......
-
Ash v. City of Independence
... ... Newbold, 18 How. 511, 15 L.Ed. 506, Sayward v ... Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 39 L.Ed. 941, 15 S.Ct. 777, and ... Railroad v. Chicago, 164 U.S. 454, 41 L.Ed. 511, 17 ... S.Ct. 129, apply with full force to the question here ... For ... these reasons this court ... ...
-
Chemical Company v. Kirven
...This, it is contended, is not sufficient to raise a Federal right, and the following cases are cited: Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Chicago, 164 U. S. 454, 41 L. ed. 511, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 129; Clarke v. McDade, 165 U. S. 168, 41 L. ed. 673, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 284; Miller v. Cornwall R. Co. 168 U.......