Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cnty. v. Hahn

• Decision Date: 18 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 20290.,20290.
• Citation: 173 N.E. 763,341 Ill. 599
• Parties: FOREST PRESERVE DIST. OF COOK COUNTY v. HAHN et ux.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

341 Ill. 599

173 N.E. 763

FOREST PRESERVE DIST. OF COOK COUNTY

v.HAHN et ux.

No. 20290.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 18, 1930.

Proceeding by the Forest Preserve District of Cook County to condemn land owned by John Hahn and wife. From a judgment on a verdict fixing compensation, petitioner appeals.

Reversed and remanded.Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Craig A. Hood, Judge.

George A. Basta and Frank S. Righeimer, both of Chicago, for appellant.

Coburn, Kearney & Coburn and Irwin Rooks, all of Chicago (Marshall V. Kearney, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

DE YOUNG, J.

The Forest Preserve District of Cook County filed a petition in the circuit court of that county for the condemnation of an improved parcel of land owned by John Hahn and Rose Hahn, his wife. The jury returned a verdict fixing the compensation to be paid for the property at $40,000. Judgment was rendered on the verdict, and the petitioner prosecutes this appeal.

The property involved in this proceeding is situated at the northwest corner of Ninety-First street and One Hundredth avenue in a sparsely settled region near Mount Forest, a village in Cook county, southwest of the city, of Chicago. The ground is approximately 270 feet in width by 600 feet in depth; it comprises 3.68 acres, and is wooded to some extent, and there are several buildings on the land. The principal building is of frame construction, two stories in height, about 25 feet wide by 72 feet long, and it has a barroom, three dining rooms, a storage room, and a bedroom on the first and ten bedrooms on the second floor. The building is upwards of thirty years old; it has no plumbing, sewer, or heating system; it is heated by stoves, and water is drawn from a well. To the rear stand a one-story frame building, 25 by 30 feet, and an old two-story brick and frame structure 20 by 38 feet in size. The other buildings are a two-car frame garage, a one-story barn, a dance pavilion 30 by 40 feet, an icehouse, an open wagon shed, and a motor house. The appellees devoted the property to the operation of a roadhouse and also, in season, to the entertainment of picnic parties.

The witnesses for both parties agreed that the highest and best use to which the property could be put was the use to which the appellees devoted it. Four real estate brokers, qualified by experience, were called by the appellant, and they severally fixed the fair cash market value of the property as of the day on which the petition was filed at $20,000, $14,922, $18,680, and $20,989. Of the witnesses called by the appellees, the broker who had negotiated the sale of the property to them testified that it was worth $55,000; a former brewer who had owned roadhouses and picnic grounds fixed its value at $50,000; a builder appraised the value of the buildings at $15,562, and the appellee John Hahn testified that he had paid $45,000 for the property. The deed to the appellees, reciting this sum of money as the consideration for the conveyance, was admitted in evidence. The appellant sought to show by a witness in rebuttal that the fixtures in the premises and the good will of the business were included in the consideration recited in the deed. On objection by counsel for the appellees, the proffered testimony was excluded.

It is first contended by the appellant that the court erroneously admitted testimony concerning the value of the business conducted in the premises by the appellees. The real estate broker who negotiated the sale to the appellees testified on cross-examination that, in fixing the value of the property at $55,000, he ‘figured it from the business standpoint, * * * the amount of business that the man has been doing. There were some times when you couldn't get into the premises. And at the rate he was charging for chicken dinners and the amount of people that came in there, the man could double his money in a certain length of time.’ The former brewer testified on cross-examination that, in arriving at his estimate of $50,000 as the value of the property, neither land nor buildings entered into his calculation, but that he considered solely the question whether the location of the property was suitable for the conduct of the business in which the appellees were engaged. He was then asked whether a site of equal size across the street or within two blocks from the appellees' property, at the intersection of two roads, and improved with buildings of the same kind as the appellees, would also be worth $50,000. He answered that he could not tell because he had known a man who operated a roadhouse on one corner and prospered, while, after he removed his business to a more advantageous location, he failed. Thereafter a motion was made by counsel for the appellant to strike out the testimony of these two witnesses with respect to the value of the property in question. The motion was denied and an...