City of Winchester v. Ring

• Citation: 146 N.E. 541,315 Ill. 358
• Decision Date: 17 February 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16374.,16374.
• Parties: CITY OF WINCHESTER v. RING.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

315 Ill. 358

146 N.E. 541

CITY OF WINCHESTER

v.RING.

No. 16374.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 17, 1925.

Suit by the City of Winchester against William H. Ring. On petition by defendant for reimbursement for money expended in defending eminent domain proceedings. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Scott County Court; James M. Riggs, Judge.

Williams & Williams, of Pittsfield, and T. J. Priest, of Winchester, for appellant.

John A. McKeene, of Winchester, for appellee.

DUNN, J.

The city of Winchester, on August 14, 1923, obtained a judgment of condemnation in the county court of Scott county of 11 57/100 acres of land for use as a cemetery, and an order that upon payment of $3,014 (the amount of compensation and damages awarded by the jury) on or before December 1, 1923, the city should have a right to enter upon the land and use it for cemetery purposes. William H. Ring, the owner of the land, appealed to the Supreme Court, and the appeal went to the December term, which began on December 3, 1923. The judgment was affirmed on April 14, 1924, but a petition for rehearing was filed, which was not disposed of until June 11, 1924, when the rehearing was denied. City of Winchester v. Ring, 312 Ill. 544, 144 N. E. 333. The city did not pay the amount awarded, either to the landowner or the county treasurer, before December 1, 1923, but on June 17, 1924, it paid the amount to the treasurer of Scott county and took possession of the land. Thereupon, on June 20, the landowner filed a petition in the county court setting forth the condemnation proceedings and judgment, averring the nonpayment of the award of compensation and damages, and alleging that by reason of the failure and neglect of the city to make such payment it had abandoned the proceeding and lost all right in the land. The petition alleged that the petitioner had incurred expenses in defense of the petition for condemnation, and prayed that he might be reimbursed for such sums of money as he had expended, as provided by law. An answer was filed setting up the proceedings subsequent to the judgment in the Supreme Court, and the payment of the money after the affirmance of the judgment, as has been stated, and, upon a hearing, the court adjudged that the condemnation proceeding had not been abandoned by the city, that the petitioner, William H. Ring, was not entitled to recover his costs, expenses, and attorney'sfees, and rendered judgment against him for the costs of his petition.

[1][2] The right to enter upon and appropriate the land arises...