Harwood v. City of Bloomington

• Decision Date: 28 March 1888
• Citation: 124 Ill. 48,16 N.E. 91
• Parties: HARWOOD v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

124 Ill. 48

16 N.E. 91

HARWOOD

v.CITY OF BLOOMINGTON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 28, 1888.

Appeal from McLean county court; C. D. MYERS, Judge.

Kerrick, Lucas & Spencer, for appellant.

A. E. Demange, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

This was a proceeding by the city of Bloomington, under article 9, c. 24, of the statute, entitled ‘An act to provide for the incorporation of cities and villages,’ to condemn certain property belonging to appellant for a street. The land taken belonging to appellant was 27 feet off the east side of lot 7, in Phoenix addition to the city. The remaining portion of the lot was 27 1/2 feet wide, upon which there was a dwelling-house and other improvements. On the trial appellant claimed compensation for that part of the lot taken, and also damages to that portion of the lot not taken, in consequence of opening the street. The court, on the evidence introduced by the respective parties, allowed $200 for the land taken and $275 as damages to that part of the lot not taken. We are not asked, in the argument, to review the decree of the court on the question of fact, but, in arriving at the amount of damages which should be allowed to the property not taken, the court allowed evidence, and took into considerationthe especial benefits accruing to that part of the lot not taken, in consequence of the opening of the street, and this decision of the court is the only error relied upon to reverse the judgment. Where land is taken for public improvement, the owner, under our constitution and statute, is entitled to the value of the land actually taken without regard to any supposed benefits which may accrue by reason of the proposed improvement. Green v. City of Chicago, 97 Ill. 371. But where the owner interposes a claim for damages to that portion of the land not taken, in consequence of the improvement, if the land not taken has secured special benefits, benefits not common to other property, such benefits may be considered in arriving at the amount of damages the owner may have sustained to his property not taken. Village of Hyde Park v. Dunham, 85 Ill. 569;City of Elgin v. Eaton, 83 Ill. 535;Page v. Railroad Co., 70 Ill. 324;McReynolds v. Railroad Co., 106 Ill. 152. The rule here announced is conceded to be the law where the proceeding to condemn arises under the eminent domain act of the state; but it is insisted that where the proceeding arises under article 9 of the act in relation to cities, villages, and towns,...