Geohegan v. Union Elevated R. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1913 |
| Citation | 101 N.E. 577,258 Ill. 352 |
| Parties | GEOHEGAN et al. v. UNION ELEVATED R. CO. et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Theodore Brentano, Judge.
Action by John E. Geohegan and others against the Union Elevated Railroad Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.Harry S. Mecartney, of Chicago, for appellants.
James J. Barbour, of Chicago (Addison L. Gardner, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
The appellants, on January 25, 1901, began an action on the case in the superior court of Cook county against the appellees for damages caused by the construction of an elevated railroad in the street in front of the appellants' real estate. A demurrer was filed which was permitted to remain without action taken for nearly five years, when it was withdrawn and pleas were filed on December 5, 1905. After another interval of about five years, during which the cause was continued or passed by agreement of the parties, it was brought to a trial, which resulted in a verdict and a judgment, on October 22, 1910, for the defendants. The Appellate Court affirmed this judgment, and the plaintiffs, having obtained a certificate of importance, appealed to this court.
The real estate in question fronts 38 feet on the east side of Fifth avenue, in the city of Chicago, is 80 feet deep, and lies immediately south of an 18-foot alley between Lake and Randolph streets. It is entirely covered by a four-story and basement brick building built in 1882. The first floor and basement were used for stores, and the other floors, which before were unfinished lofts, were in 1891 divided into 32 hotel rooms. These uses of the building were continued until the sale of the premises by the appellants, in 1908. The construction of the elevated railroad in Fifth avenue, begun in 1895, was completed and the operation of trains began in October, 1898. A station was built in front of the appellants' lot, covering almost the entire street, extending to the top of the building and having a stairway to the street parallel with the sidewalk.
Counsel for the respective parties have argued at length the question of damages; the appellants' counsel insisting that there is an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence in their favor, and the appellees' counsel that the evidence shows conclusively that the property was benefited and not damaged. With this controversy we are not concerned. There was evidence which required the submission of the case to the jury, and we can consider only errors of law arising upon the trial. Counsel for the appellants contends that the court, in giving and refusing instructions, took an erroneous view of the character of the benefits which may be set off against damages, and he has referred to the argument presented by him in the recent case of Brand v. Union Elevated Railroad Co. (No. 8,367), 101 N. E. 247, on that question. That argument has been considered. The action of the court in giving and refusing instructions in regard to benefits and damages was in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion in the Brand Case and was not erroneous.
[1]The court did, however, fall into error in other respects. The trial occurred substantially 13 years after the completion of the road and the beginning of its operation. The court instructed the jury that their estimate of damages and benefits must be made as of the date when the construction of the railroad was completed and it was put in actual operation. Evidence was introduced, however, of the enhancement of value of the property down to the time of the trial, and the court instructed the jury that if the plaintiffs' property, as a whole, ‘has not been decreased in its market value, or said property, as a whole, has been or will be beneficially affected in its market value by the construction, maintenance, and operation of the said elevated railroad, then you should find the defendants not guilty.’ Other like instructions were given which would authorize the jury to take into consideration elements of enhancement of value down to the time of the trial and to find a verdict for the defendants in case they should find the property was not damaged at the time of the trial. These instructions were inconsistent with the rule which had previously been given to the jury and were necessarily misleading. They directed a verdict and it was error to give them.
It was also error to refuse the appellants' requested instruction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geohegan v. Union Elevated R. Co.
...followed. [1] This is the second trial of the cause. The judgment for appellants in the former trial was reversed by this court. 258 Ill. 352, 101 N. E. 577. Both parties argue that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. Appellees have assigned cross-errors. Appellants argue that the prop......
-
Portland-Seattle Auto Freight, Inc. v. Jones
... ... 68; Southern Oregon Orchards Co. v ... Bakke, 106 Or. 20, 210 P. 858; Geohegan v. Union ... Elevated R. Co., 258 Ill. 352, 101 N.E. 577; Snyder ... v. State, 59 ... ...
-
McCoy v. Union Elevated R. Co.
...The same contention was made in Brand v. Union Elevated Railroad Co., 258 Ill. 133, 101 N. E. 247, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 473,Geohegan v. Union Elevated Railroad Co., 258 Ill. 352, 101 N. E. 577, and Geohegan v. Union Elevated Railroad Co., 266 Ill. 482, 107 N. E. 786, and in each of those cases ......
-
Geohegan v. Union Elevated R. Co.
...the elevated railroad structure on Fifth avenue, in Chicago. This case has been twice before this court under the same title, in 258 Ill. 352, 101 N. E. 577,and 266 Ill. 482, 107 N. E. 786, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 762. On this third trial before a jury there was a verdict for defendants in error a......