Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 29 January 1886
• Citation: 26 F. 415
• Parties: LEHIGH VALLEY COAL CO. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

26 F. 415

LEHIGH VALLEY COAL CO. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois.

January 29, 1886

Frederick Ullman, for plaintiff.

E. J Harkness, for the City.

DYER J.,

(charging jury.) The merits of this case, gentlemen, lie within rather narrow compass; but, to enable you to arrive at a correct conclusion, the testimony adduced in support of the respective claims of the parties should have your careful consideration. A verdict one way or the other should not rest upon speculation or conjecture, but upon your convictions as to the facts established by the weight of the evidence.

It is the law in this state that where the construction of a public improvement, like that in question here, has caused some direct physical disturbance of a right which a party enjoys in connection with his property, and which gives to it an additional value, and that by reason of such disturbance he has sustained a special damage with respect to his property in excess of that sustained by the public generally, he has a right of action to recover damages for the injury thus sustained. This right of action depends upon the nature and character of the improvement, and upon the question whether the property of the complaining party has been materially damaged in fact. Applying that rule to this case, it follows that if the construction of the Chicago avenue viaduct although it was an important public improvement, did in fact cause to the plaintiff's property actual damage, over and above any benefits received,-- that is, depreciation of market value,-- then the city is liable for the amount of such damage.

In considering the case the true question is whether the property was injured by the improvement. If not, then there is no damage, and can be no recovery. If there is, then the recovery must be measured by the extent of the loss. If the property is worth as much after the improvement as it was before, then there is no damage done to the property. If the benefits received from making the improvement are equal to or greater than the loss, then the property is not damaged. There can be no damage to the property without a pecuniary loss. If there is no depreciation in value there is no damage, and if no injury, then there should be no recovery. This is the language of the supreme court of this state on the subject, and establishes the general rule by which we should be guided in disposing of this case. The test is that the alleged injury must rest upon some substantial cause actually impairing the value of the property or its usefulness, and not be the result of taste or fancy merely, because of the proximity of the improvement to the property claimed to be affected by it.

Whether the plaintiff's property was damaged depends upon whether it received such material injury as rendered it less valuable to the owners, or less useful as a whole, than it would have been but for the viaduct having been constructed as it is. It is not the damages to a part of the property, considered separately from the rest, that you are allowed to assess, but the damages, if any, to the property as an entirety by reason of the construction of the viaduct, that are to be taken into consideration. It is inadmissible to treat any portion of the property injured as a distinct and separate parcel from any portion benefited. A partial effect only is not to be considered, but the whole effect; and the effect, not upon any selected part of the property, but upon the whole property. It is, of course, admissible to consider the injury, if any, to a part as affecting the whole, or as showing a damage to the whole; but what I mean is that if a part of the property be benefited or not injured, and a part be injured, you have no right to award damages for injury to the part as disconnected from the remainder, or the part benefited or not injured. Following up the application of this principle, if injury only resulted from the viaduct to a certain part of the premises, and if that injury was outweighed by additional benefits to the residue, which enhanced the market value of the property, then it could not be considered that the premises as a whole were damaged by the construction of the viaduct.

In determining the damages, if any have been sustained, and if you come to that question, the inquiry should be confined to the effect of the construction of the viaduct upon the market value of the property, and the purposes for which it was used and designed. Its location and advantages or disadvantages as to situation are proper matters of consideration by the jury. The question is, was its market value depreciated by the construction of the viaduct? And so, the past profits of the business there carried on, and conjectural profits for the future, should not enter into your consideration, because too speculative and uncertain, and therefore not a proper basis upon which to ascertain the market value of...