Chicago v. Graney

• Decision Date: 05 November 1890
• Citation: 137 Ill. 628,25 N.E. 798
• Parties: CHICAGO, P. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. GRANEY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

137 Ill. 628

25 N.E. 798

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

v.GRANEY.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 5, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county.

Morrison & Whitlock and Dale & Bradshaw, for appellant.

Happy & Travous, for appellee.

SCHOLFIELD, J.

This was a proceeding under the statute relating to eminent domain, to condemn right of way for appellant's road. The jury assessed the value of appellee's land taken (6.97 acres) at $507.60, and the damages to his lands not taken at $3,067.40, and the court rendered judgment for those amounts. Several grounds of reversal are urged.

1. It is objected that evidence was admitted tending to prove that because a small strip of land was taken, and that against appellee's sconsent, a greater price, proportionally, should be awarded than if the entire body of land had been taken with his consent. The jury were instructed by the court that appellee was entitled to receive ‘the fair and reasonable cash market value’ of the land actually taken for right of way; that ‘the market value of the land’ taken for right of way is what the same, in the opinion of the jury, would have sold for in cash, if offered for sale, at the date of filing the petition herein; and that ‘the jury cannot’ legally allow anything, either for the value of the land actually taken for right of way or for damage to the contiguous lands not taken, because of the law authorizing the taking of such lands for right of way without the consent of the land-owner. The only evidence offered by appellant in regard to the value of the land taken was that the entire farm was worth $85 per acre; and this would have authorized a verdict for the land taken of $592.45, instead of only $507.60, for which the verdict was rendered. So also the evidence given on behalf of appellee would have authorized a verdict for damages to lands not taken of $6,000, instead of only, as rendered, for $3,067.40. It is therefore manifest that the instruction of the court corrected any error there may have been in the respect of which complaint is made in the admission of evidence, and that that error did appellant no harm.

2. It is objected that the court permitted evidence of the value of the apple trees growing upon the land taken to be given to the jury independently of the value of the land to which they were attached; but this evidence does not appear to have been objected to at the time it was offered, and it is apparent from the verdict, when the evidence of the value of the entire farm is considered, that it did not affect it. Appellant, therefore, has no right now to complain of its introduction.

3. It is objected that evidence was given of the value of buildings independently of the value of the land. This, as we understand the record, was simply for the purpose of rebutting evidence offered by appellant to the...