Conwell v. the Springfield

Decision Date31 January 1876
Citation1876 WL 9960,81 Ill. 232
PartiesSAMUEL C. CONWELLv.THE SPRINGFIELD AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD CO.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Mason county; the Hon. LYMAN LACEY, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. DEARBORN & CAMPBELL, for the appellant.

Mr. A. ORENDORFF, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a proceeding instituted in the circuit court of Mason county, by The Springfield and Northwestern Railroad Company, against appellant, Samuel C. Conwell, and James F. Kelsey and George W. Cogshall, to condemn certain lands for the right of way.

The east half of section 31, township 21 north, range 8 west, in Mason county, was embraced in the petition, and was owned by appellant and James F. Kelsey, undivided.

After the original petition had been filed, and before the cause was tried, the railroad company filed an amendment to the petition, in which it was substantially alleged, that defendant, Conwell, claims to have some interest in some of the land in controversy; that said Conwell on the first day of September, A. D. 1870, made and executed to the petitioner, a full and complete agreement to release the right of way over and across all the land owned by him in the county of Mason, thereby agreeing to convey to petitioner the right of way over all said lands as soon as the road is located, and for the consideration of one dollar to him paid by the petitioner; that said Conwell now claims a right to damage for and by reason of the petitioner having located their line of road over and across said land; prays, as before, that the claim of said Conwell be referred to the jury herein empanneled, and determine the question as to the right to damage, and assess the amount of the same, if any, etc.

On the trial of the cause, damages were awarded to Kelsey and Cogshall, but under the instructions of the court no damages were allowed Samuel C. Conwell, and he alone has prosecuted this appeal.

Several questions have been raised by appellant, and argued, for the purpose of reversing the judgment, but in the view we take of the record, it will only be necessary to consider the release offered in evidence by appellee, and the instructions of the court upon it, as the release will be conclusive upon appellant's right of recovery.

On the trial, appellee read in evidence a release executed by appellant, as follows:

“Know all men by these presents, that I, S. C. Conwell, of the county of Mason, and State of Illinois, in consideration of one dollar, to me in hand paid by the Springfield and Northwestern Railroad Company, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby agree to release and convey unto the said company, the right of way for the said railroad over my lands, owned by me, in Mason county, Illinois, and to execute and deliver to said company a proper release and conveyance of the same, as soon as said road is located.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed my seal, this 1st day of September, A. D. 1870.

+---------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Witness, outside of Havana, not¦)¦                       ¦
                +-------------------------------+-+-----------------------¦
                ¦                               ¦)¦S. C. CONWELL, [SEAL.]”¦
                +-------------------------------+-+-----------------------¦
                ¦to include any town property.  ¦)¦                       ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------+
                

The court, upon the request of appel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Cape Girardeau & C. R. Co. v. Wingerter
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Abril 1907
    ...in such contract mentioned is not sufficiently definite. We are not impressed with this assignment. It was adjudged in Conwell v. Springfield, etc., Ry. Co., 81 Ill. 232, that a bond or agreement to convey a right of way to be afterwards selected is undoubtedly good and may be enforced. See......
  • Cape Girardeau & Chester Railroad Company v. Wingerter
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Abril 1907
    ...in such contract mentioned is not sufficiently definite. We are not impressed with this assignment. It was adjudged in Conwell v. Springfield, etc., Ry. Co., 81 Ill. 232, that a bond or agreement to convey a right of way to be afterwards selected is undoubtedly good and may be enforced. [Se......
  • Mosher v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 Diciembre 1878
    ...Co. v. Morrison, 62 Ill. 242; Foy v. Blackstone, 31 Ill. 538; Snyder v. Griswold, 37 Ill. 216; Jones v. Albee, 70 Ill. 34; Conwell v. S. & N.W. R. R. Co. 81 Ill. 232; Mason v. Burton, 54 Ill. 350; Cease v. Cockle, 76 Ill. 484. The Association had no authority to lay out and plat an addition......
  • Keegan v. Kinnaire
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 Octubre 1882
    ...on Ev. § 275; Abrams v. Pomeroy, 13 Ill. 133; Harlow v. Boswell, 15 Ill. 56; Winnesheik Ins. Co. v. Hobzgrafe, 53 Ill. 522; Conwell v. R. R. Co. 81 Ill. 232; 2 Wharton on Evidence, § 1014. We think also that the court erred in allowing plaintiff to give evidence of the alleged parol agreeme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT