City of Lincoln v. Chicago & A.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1914 |
| Citation | 262 Ill. 98,104 N.E. 282 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF LINCOLN v. CHICAGO & A. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County; Charles J. Gelbach, Judge.
Proceeding by the City of Lincoln against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company to levy an assessment. From a judgment of confirmation, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.W. A. Covey, of Mason City (Silas H. Strawn, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Uri Kissinger, City Atty., of Lincoln (Humphrey Anderson, of Lincoln, of counsel), for appellee.
On March 28, 1913, the city council of the city of Lincoln passed three ordinances for the paving, respectively, of Chicago street, Pulaski street, and Broadway. Petitions were filed in the county court of Logan county for the levy of special assessments to pay the cost of the improvements and judgments of confirmation were entered, from which the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, whose property was assessed in each proceeding, appealed.
Chicago street runs northeast and southwest, adjoining the railroad on the east. Pulaski street and Broadway cross Chicago street at right angles, Broadway immediately south of the depot and Pulaski street a block further south. The legal objections in the three cases were heard together on the same evidence and overruled. The question of benefits as to the Chicago street improvement was then submitted to a jury, and as to the Pulaski street and Broadway improvements to the court without a jury. This appeal is from the judgment in the case involving the paving of Broadway. The portion of the street to be paved extended from the west side of Chicago street, which is the east line of the railroad company's property, west about six blocks to Union street. The total cost of the improvement was estimated at $13,016.20, the public benefit at $1,963.52, and the appellant's property, which adjoined the improvement 180 feet on each side thereof, was assessed $1,637.70. Further facts material to be considered in the case are stated in the opinion in the case of City of Lincoln v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. (No. 9,269), 104 N. E. 277, which is an appeal from the case involving the Chicago street improvement. The same objection was made in this case as in that on account of the failure to assess the Lincoln Railway & Light Company, and it was properly overruled for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case. That opinion also disposes of the questions arising on the hearing in regard to benefits, out of the uses to which the property had been put and the restrictions on its use imposed by law or the deed by which it was held.
At the request of the petitioner the court held as a proposition of law that ‘it makes no difference in this case whether or not such property assessed is used at present for such purpose that it will not be specially benefited by the proposed improvement or is put to any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- City of Lincoln v. Chicago & A.R. Co.
-
People ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Quincy Coach House, Inc.
...of the whole tract that was based in part on rental income obtainable from the owner occupied premises. In City of Lincoln v. Chicago and Alton R. Co., 262 Ill. 98, 104 N.E. 282, the defendant appealing from an assessment for a local improvement was ruled to be precluded from complaining of......
-
City of Chicago v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
... ... Illinois Central Railroad Co., 257 Ill. 298, 100 N. E. 996;[278 Ill. 91]City of Lincoln v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 262 Ill. 11,104 N. E. 282. The test is whether the right of way of the railroad property will be benefited in its ... ...
-
Department of Transp. v. Quincy Coach House, Inc.
...party, since, at the trial to determine final just compensation, both sides present their case De novo. City of Lincoln v. Chicago and Alton R.R. Co., 262 Ill. 98, 104 N.E. 282, cited by the appellate court in support of its holding that the petitioner had waived its right to object is inap......