Glennon v. Chicago
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 79 Ill. 501,1875 WL 8671 |
| Parties | THOMAS GLENNON et al.v.CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. E. & A. VAN BUREN, for the appellants.
Mr. E. WALKER, for the appellee
This was debt, in the circuit court of Cook county, tried by the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for the defendants.
The origin of the controversy was a petition filed by appellees, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, to condemn certain real estate of appellants for the use of their railway, and such proceedings were had that commissioners were appointed to assess the damages.
The commissioners made their report, which seems to have been satisfactory to both parties, and it was confirmed by the court.
Appellants were the owners and occupiers of the premises as the National Boiler Works Company of Chicago, and doing business thereon as such.
The commissioners assessed the value of the real estate at fifteen thousand dollars, and the value of the improvements thereon at thirty-five hundred dollars, and further awarded as follows:
“And if the said improvements shall be retained by the said owners for a period of three (3) months, then we find that no damage has accrued to them (the said owners) by reason of the interruption of their said business; and if the said owners shall retain the possession for two (2) months, then we fix the damage of interruption at sixteen hundred dollars ($1600); and if the said owners shall retain the possession one (1) month, then we fix the damages at thirty-two hundred dollars ($3200); and for the removal of their tools and implements necessary to carry on their business, we fix the damages at two hundred dollars ($200).”
It is upon this portion of the award the controversy arises. Appellants claim, as they offered to surrender the possession of the premises within one month after the award, tendering the key for that purpose, they were entitled to claim thirty-two hundred dollars of appellees.
It is evident, from the wording of the award, that the commissioners had in view some compensation to the occupiers of the property consequent upon an interruption of their business. If that was not interrupted, they were not entitled to damages. The removal was effected in one day, and no appreciable damage resulted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago
...pay any money unless it chooses to do so, and it has the right to abandon the improvement. Railway Co. v. Teters, 68 Ill. 144;Glennon v. Railway Co., 79 Ill. 501;City of Chicago v. Barbian, 80 Ill. 482;City of Bloomington v. Miller, 84 Ill. 621. Until payment of the award is made by the cit......
-
City of Chicago v. Hayward
...City of Chicago v. Barbian, 80 Ill. 482;Railway Co. v. Teters, 68 Ill. 144;City of Bloomington v. Miller, 84 Ill. 621;Glennon v. Railway Co., 79 Ill. 501;Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 148 Ill. 141, 35 N. E. 881;Village of Hyde Park v. Dunham, 85 Ill. 569. The city has a right ......
-
Forney v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co.
...v. City of Chicago, 38 Ill. 322;In re Road, 7 Ohio St. 16; 1 Ror. R. R. 363, 364, 442, 443; Mills, Em. Dom. §§ 243, 258, 329; Glennon v. Railway Co., 79 Ill. 501;Leber v. Railway Co., 13 N. W. Rep. 31;Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 84 Ind. 520, 10 Amer. & Eng. R. Cas. 408; Railroad Co. v. Byingto......
- Yates v. the Vill. of Batavia.