Mcauley v. Columbus
| Citation | 1876 WL 10346,83 Ill. 348 |
| Parties | JOHN MCAULEY et al.v.COLUMBUS, CHICAGO AND INDIANA CENTRAL RY. CO. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1876 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding.
Mr. JAMES H. KNOWLTON, and Mr. GEO. GARDNER, for the plaintiff in error.
This was a proceeding instituted by The Columbus, Chicago and Indiana Central Railway Company, for the condemnation of private property for the use of its railroad.
The petition filed July 13, 1872, sets forth that the petitioner is a corporation duly organized under and by virtue of a special charter granted by the legislature of Illinois, and under the public laws of said State, with full authority to construct a railroad from a point on the line dividing the State of Indiana from the State of Illinois, in the county of Cook, in the latter State, thence upon the most eligible route to the city of Chicago, in said county, being a part of a general line extending from the city of Cincinnati to the city of Chicago; that it had constructed its road from said point to the city of Chicago, and now sought to construct its road within said city, as authorized by its charter, in order to which, the occupancy and use of certain described lots in the city of Chicago were necessary, and that petitioner had not been able to obtain the same by purchase, etc. Compensation for the taking of the property was assessed by a jury, and the land owners bring this writ of error.
The main objection which is urged against the proceeding is, that the petitioner was not a corporation, and had not authority to construct a railroad in the city of Chicago over the lands in question.
In support of its right to take the proceeding, the petitioner in the court below exhibited in evidence “An act to incorporate the Galena and Illinois River Railroad Company,” approved February 18, 1857, Private Laws, 1857, page 1400, empowering that company to construct a railroad from Galena, in JoDaviess county, to a point to be thereafter located, in township No. 35 east, of range No. 13, principal meridian, upon the most eligible route between the points above named, and authorizing it to consolidate its road with any other railroad within this or any other State, which might cross or intersect the same, or be built along the line thereof.
There was also offered in evidence what purported to be articles of consolidation between the “Chicago and Great Eastern Railway Company,” a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana, and the “Galena and Illinois River Railroad Company,” entered into October 30, 1863; also, articles of consolidation between the Great Eastern Railway Company and the Chicago Air-Line Railroad Company, dated January 25, 1865; also, articles of consolidation between the Chicago and Great Eastern Railway Company and the Chicago and Cincinnati Railroad Company, dated January 25, 1865; also, articles of consolidation between the Columbus, Chicago and Indiana Central Railway Company and the Chicago and Great Eastern Railway Company, dated December 4, 1867; and an act of the General Assembly of this State, approved February 16, 1865, entitled “An act to amend the charter of the Chicago and Great Eastern Railway Company,” Private Laws, 1865, vol. 2, p. 147.
This was all the evidence introduced to show the right of the petitioner to construct the railroad at the locality in question, and it is alleged to be insufficient for the purpose, because all these railway companies appeared on the face of the respective articles of consolidation to be railway corporations of other States than Illinois, except the Galena and Illinois River Railroad Company; that the incorporating act of that company granted no authority to construct a railroad further east than the east line of range 13 east, of the third principal meridian, whereas, in the articles of consolidation between that company and the Great Eastern Railway Company, it is recited that the companies have a common terminus on the line dividing the States of Illinois and Indiana, which had been fixed by the companies at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilmington City Railway Co. v. Wilmington & Brandywine Springs Railway Co.
... ... Penna. Gas. Co., 161 Pa. St. 510; Detroit ... vs. Detroit City Ry. Co., 56 F. 867; Long vs ... City, 49 Minn. 280, 51 N.W. 913; Columbus Water Co ... vs. City of Columbus, 48 Kan. 99, 28 P. 1097; North ... Baltimore Pass. Ry. Co. vs. North Ave. Ry. Co., 75 Md ... 233, 23 A ... ...
-
State ex rel. Regents v. McCloskey Bros.
... ... that proceeding in the nature quo warranto was pending to challenge organization of railroad rather than through condemnation proceeding); McAuley v. Columbus, Chicago and Indian Central Railroad Co., 83 Ill. 348 (1876)(In proceeding to condemn land, de facto corporation is sufficient); ... ...
-
State ex rel. Board of Regents v. McCloskey Brothers, Inc., 2009 OK 90 (Okla. 12/8/2009), 105228.
...organization of railroad rather than through condemnation proceeding); McAuley v. Columbus, Chicago and Indian Central Railroad Co., 83 Ill. 348 (1876)(In proceeding to condemn land, de facto corporation is sufficient); Atkinson v. Marietta & Cincinnati R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21 (1864)(corpora......
-
The State ex Informatione Crow v. Lincoln Trust Co.
...636; Mead v. Railroad, 45 Conn. 199; The People ex rel. v. Farnham, 35 Ill. 562; Snell v. Chicago, 133 Ill. 413, 24 N.E. 532; McAuley v. Railroad, 83 Ill. 348; Koch Railroad, 75 Md. 222. So a forfeiture of its charter by a corporation, by non-compliance with the terms of a condition contain......