City of Edwardsville v. Madison Cnty.
| Decision Date | 25 October 1911 |
| Citation | 96 N.E. 238,251 Ill. 265 |
| Parties | CITY OF EDWARDSVILLE v. MADISON COUNTY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; W. E. Hadley, Judge.
Proceedings by the City of Edwardsville to condemn land for a street through the poor farm of Madison County. From a judgment denying such relief, the City appeals. Affirmed.
Charles E. Gueltig, Corp. Counsel, for appellant.
J. F. Gillham, State's Atty. (F. E. Sebastian, of counsel), for appellee.
The city of Edwardsville attempted to condemn for a street a strip of land through the Madison county poor farm, consisting of 19 acres, within the corporate limits of the city. On motion of the county of Madison the court dismissed the petition, and this appeal presents the question of the right of the municipality to condemn for public use the property of a county used for public purposes connected with the administration of the state government.
[1] The right of eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property to the public use, and it extends to every kind of property and to every public use. It is inherent in the state, and may be exercised by a municipality only by virtue of a grant from the state. The power has been granted to cities for the purpose of laying out streets. Such power extends, however, only to the taking of private property. The statute does not authorize the taking of the property of the state, or of the subordinate municipalities through whose agency the state governmentis administered, by the exercise of the right of eminent domain. Such property is already devoted to the public use, and is subject to the control of the state, which may authorize such use of it as it sees fit. The Legislature may authorize one use to-day and another use to-morrow, and, except where private rights are affected, its discretion is absolute. People v. Walsh, 96 Ill. 232, 36 Am. Rep. 135.
[2] A county is merely a political subdivision of the territory of the state, organized for the convenient exercise, locally, of such powers of the government as may be delegated to it. It has no powers except such as are derived from the statutes constitutionally enacted, and it can own no private property.
[3] Property, the title to which is vested in the county, is public property, held by the county as a state agency, and in the absence of positive constitutional restriction is subject to the disposition of the Legislature without the consent of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorrells v. City of Macomb
...property for public use, subject to the constitutional requirement that just compensation be paid. City of Edwardsville v. County of Madison, 251 Ill. 265, 266, 96 N.E. 238 (1911). In an eminent domain proceeding, the condemning body files a condemnation action under the Eminent Domain Act ......
-
Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. State
...418; Atlanta v. Central R. & B. Co., 53 Ga. 120; St. Louis, J. & C. R. Co. v. Trustees, 43 Ill. 303; Edwardsville v. Madison County, 251 Ill. 265, 96 N. E. 238, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 101; B. & O. & C. R. Co. v. North, 103 Ind. 486, 3 N. E. 144; City of St. Louis v. Moore, 269 Mo. 430, 190 S. ......
-
Illinois Cities Water Co. v. City of Mt. Vernon
...or intangible. South Park Commissioners v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 248 Ill. 299, 93 N.E. 910; City of Edwardsville v. County of Madison, 251 Ill. 265, 96 N.E 238, 37 L.R.A.,N.S., 101; Leonard v. Autocar Sales & Service Co., 392 Ill. 182, 64 N.E.2d 477, 163 A.L.R. 670; Department of Public Wo......
-
Linwood & Auburn Levee District v. State
...another use without the express consent of the sovereign. Supra; 39 Ill.App. 610; 25 N. W. (Minn.) 345; 73 Hun, 256, 261; 53 Ga. 120, 124; 96 N.E. 238; 144 W. (Minn.) 960; 138 S.W. 575, 580; 79 A. 440, 442; 110 N. W. (Neb.) 629, note. 3. The use which appellant seeks to make of the farm is ......