Chicago v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 19 May 1884
• Citation: 1884 WL 9897,110 Ill. 414
• Parties: CHICAGO AND EVANSTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.JOHN JACOBS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

110 Ill. 414

1884 WL 9897 (Ill.)

CHICAGO AND EVANSTON RAILROAD COMPANY

v.JOHN JACOBS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa May 19, 1884.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. RICHARD PRENDERGAST, Judge, presiding.

Mr. E. WALKER, and Mr. F. J. LOESCH, for the appellant.

Messrs. RUBENS, MCGAFFEY & AMES, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a proceeding to condemn certain lots in the city of Chicago, for railroad purposes. Appellee, John Jacobs, was the owner of lots 39 to 45, inclusive, in sub-block 3, in the subdivision of block 12, in Sheffield's addition to Chicago. These lots are each twenty-four feet front, and one hundred and twenty-four feet deep. Jacobs resided on lot 45, in a frame cottage. Upon the rear of the lot were a barn, shed and out-houses. The lots were used by Jacobs for market gardening. In the county court, where a trial was had, the jury awarded Jacobs $8900 as compensation for his property, and judgment was rendered on the verdict.

It is contended by appellant that the damages are excessive, that the court erred in the admission of evidence, and in modifying and giving instructions.

As to the damages allowed by the jury, the evidence in regard to the value of the property taken was conflicting. Where such is the case, and the jury have in person examined the property, we do not regard it our duty to reverse on the ground, alone, that the damages might be considered high, unless the damages are clearly excessive; and in this case we would not be inclined to reverse had the law involved in the case been properly given to the jury.

It appeared from the testimony that the lots had been well manured for market gardening, and one witness was called to testify to the value of the compost on the land, per load. The admission of this testimony, it is contended, is erroneous. We perceive no valid objection to the evidence. If the soil had been so enriched that it could be sold for manure, and was valuable for that purpose, such testimony was competent for the consideration of the jury in determining the market value of the property. The owner of the lots could not be confined to their value for building purposes alone. If the lots had a market value for any purpose, he had the right to establish that fact and prove such value. If the lots were more valuable for market gardening than for any other purpose, the owner had the right to establish that fact. The real issue was the market value of the property for any purpose for which it was adapted or might be used. The proper rule on this subject is declared in Haslam v. Galena and Southern Wisconsin R. R. Co. 64 Ill. 353, where it was held: “The true test as to damages to be paid for land taken, is its market value; but in estimating the damages, reference may be had not merely to the uses to which the land is...