City of Jacksonville v. Lambert

• Decision Date: 31 January 1872
• Citation: 62 Ill. 519,1872 WL 8084
• Parties: CITY OF JACKSONVILLEv.EDWARD LAMBERT.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

62 Ill. 519

1872 WL 8084 (Ill.)

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

v.EDWARD LAMBERT.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1872.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Morgan County; the Hon. C. D. HODGES, Judge, presiding. This was an action on the case by Lambert against the city of Jacksonville. The declaration set forth in substance that plaintiff was possessed and seized of certain tracts of land, containing fifty acres, in the limits of the city, of great value, and suitable for residences; that defendant, in the exercise of its corporate powers, constructed and built a sewer, giving its commencement, courses and terminus, so that large quantities of foul, nauseous, noxious, putrid, etc., substances, liquids, and matter flowed out of such sewer, and from thence into, upon, and over some of the aforesaid tracts, rendering the air unwholesome and offensive, etc., whereby the plaintiff had been greatly annoyed and disturbed in the enjoyment of said lands, and the sale thereof destroyed, and the value greatly depreciated.

The testimony showed that the terminus of the sewer was about three hundred feet from the nearest part of the plaintiff's land, and that the flowings from the sewer passed over and cut off about six acres of plaintiff's land. The plaintiff lived about half a mile from the flow. Plaintiff testified: “I estimate my damages principally on the ground that I couldn't sell my lands in part or in whole on account of the outflowing of the sewerage upon the premises.” The other material facts appear in the opinion.

Mr. OSCAR A. DE LEUW and Mr. I. L. MORRISON, for the appellant.

Mr. J. T. SPRINGER and Mr. H. STRYKER, JR., for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is first insisted, that the city is not liable to appellee for damages he may have sustained by reason of constructing the sewer so as to discharge the drainage from the city upon the premises of appellee. And it is said that cities have been compelled to construct such improvements for the preservation of the health of their citizens and for the promotion of their comfort. And it is urged that the work was skillfully and well done. This may all be conceded, and still it does not follow that liability would not attach. It may be true that a city is liable to be compelled to afford sufficient drainage for the health and comfort of the people, but that would not authorize them to so construct the work as to destroy or seriously impair the value of the property of an individual. No one would suppose that the city would have the right by drainage and sewerage to collect all of the dirty water, swill, putrid matter, and garbage of the city, or any portion thereof, and lead it to and discharge it in the door-yards of a portion of the inhabitants. That would be an invasion of private rights; that would be violation of every rule of law, and shock the sense of justice entertained by every fair-minded man.

Nor would it be in the slightest degree either a defense or excuse, to show that such a sewer or drain was constructed of the best material, and the work performed in the most skillful manner, and the plan on the most approved model. In performing such duties they are required to construct such improvements in such a manner as to avoid injury to individual property. They have no right to concentrate the offal and filth of a city, which is a nuisance to the public, and discharge it upon the premises of an individual. If a public nuisance, and there is no means of making proper drainage without...