Coy v. Union Elevated Co
Decision Date | 03 June 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 190,190 |
Citation | 247 U.S. 354,38 S.Ct. 504,62 L.Ed. 1156 |
Parties | McCOY et al. v. UNION ELEVATED R. CO. et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Harry S. Mecartney and John S. Miller, both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Francis W. Walker, Roger L. Foote, and Addison L. Gardner, all of Chicago, Ill., for defendants in error.
William A. McCoy, testator of plaintiffs in error, owned a hotel situated at the northwest corner of Clark and Van Buren streets, Chicago. During 1897 defendants constructed along the latter street and in front of the building an elevated passenger railroad of the ordinary type and have continued to maintain and operate it. Charging that construction, maintenance, and operation of the railroad had caused and would continue to cause injury to the property by noise, smoke, dirt, shutting off air and light, disturbing privacy, and impairing the freedom of ingress and egress, and that its market value had been greatly reduced, McCoy brought a common-law action (September, 1902) in a state court to recover the entire damage.
The declaration does not allege plaintiff's ownership of the fee in the street, but asserts his interest in the lot and right to the 'easements and privileges which legally appertain and rightfully belong to property abutting public streets' in Chicago, including the right of light, air, access, privacy, view, etc. Trial to a jury upon plea of not guilty during February, 1914, resulted in verdict for defendants, and judgment thereon was affirmed by the Supreme Court, a writ of error having been sued out by McCoy's executors. 271 Ill. 490, 111 N. E. 517. That court's statement of facts follows:
'During the years 1896 and 1897 what is generally known as the 'loop' was constructed, under authority conferred by ordinances of the city of Chicago, for the joint use of the three systems above mentioned and an- other elevated system then in course of construction. The loop consists of an elevated structure in the streets encircling the central portion of the business district of the city, upon which are laid tracks for the passage of the elevated trains of all of the defendant companies completely around the central portion of the business district. Before the construction of the loop the elevated trains of the defendant companies stopped at their respective terminals. The structure forming the south side of the loop was placed in that portion of Van Buren street extending from Wabash avenue on the east to Fifth avenue on the west, Clark street being one of the streets intersecting Van Buren street between these two avenues.
During the trial, over plaintiff's objections, questions concerning evidence were determined in accordance with repeated rulings by the Illinois Supreme Court that the effect of construction, maintenance, and operation of an elevated road upon market value was the point for determination, and that increase in such value caused by the improvement itself should be considered and treated as a special benefit, although enjoyed by other neighborhood property.
Among others, plaintiff requested the following instructions:
'The jury are instructed that the Constitution of this state provides that 'private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.' This action is brought by plaintiff for an alleged damage to the property of plaintiff arising from the construction [maintenance and operation] of the structure in the abutting street for elevated railroad purposes. Such damages in the eye of the law can only be a loss in the market value of the property arising from the said construction [maintenance and operation] for the purposes aforesaid. Whether the premises in question have in fact been so damaged is for the jury to find from the evidence, according to the method and within the limitations of other instructions given you.
'The court instructs the jury that 'benefits' and 'damages' spoken of in the instruction mean benefits and damages to the market value thereof, and that by the term 'market value' of property, as used in these instructions, is meant the price at which the owner, if desirous of selling, would under ordinary circumstances surrounding the sales of property have sold the property for, and what a person desirous as purchaser would have paid for it under the same circumstances.
'The jury are instructed that, in considering the question of whether the premises in question were or were not damaged by the construction of the structure in the abutting street for elevated railroad purposes they are to exclude from consideration all benefit which accrued to the said premises or to the owners thereof by reason of improved travel facilities furnished by said elevated railroad.'
The words 'maintenance and operation' were inserted in the first of these requests and as thus amended it was given; the others were refused.
The following instructions were also given:
'The court instructs the jury that benefits and damages spoken of in these instructions mean benefits and damages to the fair cash market value thereof, and that by the term 'fair cash market value of the property,' as used in these instructions, is meant its value as determined by what it would sell for in the market for cash in the due course of business. This does not mean the price at which it would sell under special circumstances, ut its value as sold in the market under ordinary circumstances for cash, and not on time, and assuming that the owner is willing and not compelled to sell, and the purchaser is willing and under no compulsion to purchase.
'The jury is instructed that, if you believe from the evidence that plaintiff's premises have been increased in their fair cash market value by the construction, maintenance, and operation of defendants' said railroad, and if you also believe from the evidence that other property in the neighborhood of the plaintiff's premises not abutting upon the defendants' railroad have been likewise increased in their fair cash market value by the construction, maintenance, and operation of said railroad, but to a greater extent than the plaintiff's said premises, you have no right from that fact to find that the plaintiff's premises have been damaged.
'Special benefits are such benefits as are special or peculiar to a particular piece of property, and which beneficially affect its fair cash market value, as distinguished from those benefits which are common to the public at large, and which are termed general benefits; and you are instructed that in determining the effect of the construction, maintenance, and operation of defendants' elevated railroad upon the fair cash market value of plaintiff's said premises, you are not to take into consideration any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Case No. 20-CV-0889 (PJS/BRT)
...Assembly of the State of Colorado , 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632 (1964), and McCoy v. Union Elevated Railroad Co. , 247 U.S. 354, 365, 38 S.Ct. 504, 62 L.Ed. 1156 (1918) —in support of her claim that the right to own property is a fundamental right subject to substantive-due-......
-
Kline v. McCloud
... ... We summarized this rule in the single Syllabus Point of In Re Assessment of Union ... Page 718 ... Carbide Corp., 157 W.Va. 631, 203 S.E.2d 370 (1974): ... " 'This Court will not reverse the order of a ... ...
-
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.
...To award him less would be unjust to him; to award him more would be unjust to the public." And in McCoy v. Union Elevated R.R. Co. (1918) 247 U.S. 354, 38 S.Ct. 504, 62 L.Ed. 1156, the high court said: "The fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is that the owner shall no......
-
Joiner v. City of Dallas
...74 L.Ed. 904 (1930). 12 See, e. g., Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U.S. 362, 50 S.Ct. 299, 74 L.Ed. 904 (1930); McCoy v. Union Elev. R. Co., 247 U.S. 354, 38 S.Ct. 504, 62 L.Ed. 1156 (1917); Marchant v. Pennsylvania Co., 153 U.S. 380, 14 S.Ct. 894, 38 L.Ed. 751 (1894). 13 Joslin Co. v. Providence, 2......
-
Resilience and Raisins: Partial Takings and Coastal Climate Change Adaptation
...v. United States, 147 U.S. 282, 284 (1893). 45. Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255 (1934). 46. McCoy v. Union Elevated R.R. Co., 247 U.S. 354 (1918). 47. Monangahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312 (1893). 48. 292 U.S. 246, 256 (1934). 49. Id. at 248. 50. Id. 51. Id. at......