Dep't of Pub. Works & Buildings of Illinois v. Sohm

• Decision Date: 17 February 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16346.,16346.
• Citation: 315 Ill. 478,146 N.E. 518
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS OF STATE OF ILLINOIS v. SOHM.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

315 Ill. 478

146 N.E. 518

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS OF STATE OF ILLINOIS

v.SOHM.

No. 16346.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 17, 1925.

Condemnation proceeding by the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois against Otto F. Sohm and others. From the judgment rendered, the named defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Appeal from Circuit Court, McHenry County; E. D. Shurtleff, judge.

D. T. Smiley, of Woodstock, for appellant.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., David R. Joslyn and David R. Joslyn, Jr., both of Woodstock (A. E. Campbell, of Champaign, of counsel), for appellee.

DUNN, J.

The department of public works and buildings of the state of Illinois filed a petition in the circuit court of McHenry county, representing that it was engaged in the construction of the system of durable hard-surfaced roads authorized by an act of the Legislature in force July 1, 1917, and that in such construction it was necessary to acquire certain lands and premises described in the petition. The lands described were two tracts, one known as tract A, being a part of lot 4 of block 8 of the plat of the town of McHenry, which was particularly described in the petition by metes and bounds and was alleged to be private property. The other tract, called tract B, was alleged to be a part of fractional section 26, town 25 north, range 8 east of the third principal meridian, being a strip 66 feet wide immediately south of and adjoining block 8 of the plat of the town of McHenry, and extending west from the west line of Fox street to the Fox river, and was particularly described in the petition by metes and bounds. Tract B was alleged to be a part of a public highway, but obstructed by certain buildings erected thereon. The petition further alleged that the persons mentioned in connection with tract A are, so far as appears of record and so far as the petitioner has been able to learn, the persons who own or are otherwise interested in the premises, or claim to have some interest therein, and that the persons mentioned in connection with tract B are, so far as appears from the record and so far as the petitioner has been able to learn, the only persons who are interested in the same or claim to have any interest therein. No persons are mentioned in the petition in connection with either tract A or tract B, but it is represented ‘that the names of the owners of the fee of said lands and premises as appearing of record, and the persons claiming to be interested therein, so far as your petitioner knows and is informed, are.’ Then follow the names of several persons, including Otto F. Sohm and Mary Sohm, but not stating more definitely the title or interest of any one, except that one is alleged to be the holder of a note and two the trustees of a mortgage securing it, but not stating the amount of the note or the property mortgaged. The petition prays for summons against the persons named, and that just compensation may be made, according to law, to the owners and persons interested in said lands and premises, and to each of them, as he or they are entitled under the laws of this state.

Otto F. Sohm and Mary Sohm, two of the defendants, filed an answer to the petition, stating that they admit the right of the petitioner to file a petition to condemn land, but they state that the allegation of the petition that the lands referred to as tract B are a part of the public highway, but obstructed by certain buildings erected thereon, is untrue, and they aver that the south half of tract B is now owned and occupied by Otto F. Sohm, one of the defendants, and was so owned and occupied for a great many years prior to the filing of the petition to condemn. The answer further avers that Sohm has made lasting, valuable improvements upon the south half of tract B, consisting of a boathouse on the river bank for the purpose of using motorboats and rowboats, with a large garage over the boathouse, and above the garage a number of rooms, constituting a substantial structure and improvement, consisting of stone, cement, wood, and other building materials; that leading from the garage to the public highway east is a wide cement driveway, with curb and gutter, and running north and south on the east side of tract B a substantial iron fence with a small iron gate, and a sidewalk leading up to the residence of Sohm; that over the cement driveway there is a substantial pergola, covered with vines, and along the driveway are extensive flower beds and gardens; that such improvements are substantial, lasting, and valuable, and were placed on tract B because Sohm is the owner of that tract, and also the owner of all of block 9, which lies immediately south of and adjoining tract B. The defendants' answer concludes with a denial of the petitioner's right to condemn any part of the south half of tract B, and prays the same advantage of the answer as if they had pleaded or demurred to the petition. Otto and Mary Sohm also filed a cross-petition, alleging that Sohm is the owner in possession of the south half of tract B, and also block 9, and that the south half of tract B immediately adjoins and abuts on block 9 on the north, and is a...