O'Meara v. Chicago, M., St. P.&P.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 23934.,23934. |
| Citation | 367 Ill. 82,10 N.E.2d 378 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | O'MEARA v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P. R. CO. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Cook County; George Fred Rush, judge.
Suit by Maurice P. O'Meara, trustee, against the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company and others. From a decree of dismissal, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.Urion, Bishop & Sladkey, of Chicago (Howard F. Bishop, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., and Maurice L. Bluhm and C. S. Jefferson, both of Chicago, (Jerome F. Dixon, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
Appellant filed suit in the circuit court of Cook county to enjoin the construction and maintenance of a grade separation, or underpass, adjoining his premises at the intersection of Waukegan road and the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, in the village of Glenview, in Cook county. The object sought by the injunction was to stop work on the grade separation until appellant's damages for loss of accessibility to premises used by him as a gasoline filling station had been determined and paid. He also claimed damages for the taking of a disputed three-foot strip of property by the state in widening the road and making the necessary grade therefor. At the time the evidence was heard a substantial part of the excavation for the new highway appears to have been completed. The bill made the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways of the state of Illinois; Kendrick Harger (District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways), W. A. Black, and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, parties defendant. The trial court denied the motion for a temporary injunction, and on March 26, 1936, after a full hearing, dismissed the second amended bill for an injunction and entered a final decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity. This appeal followed.
At the April, 1937, term of this court, the case of Noorman v. Department of Public Works & Buildings, 366 Ill. 216, 8 N.E.(2d) 637, was decided. In that case, as in the case at bar, the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways of the state of Illinois, Kendrick Harger (District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways), were made defendants. After careful consideration of all the identical arguments advanced by same counsel in the Noorman Case as are advanced here in behalf of jurisdiction, we held that the Department of Public Works and Buildings, which is simply an agency of the state, was improperly named as a defendant, and that Kendrick Harger, ‘District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Buildings, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwing v. Miles
...191 N.E. 259. It is settled that a suit against the department is a suit against the state (O'Meara, Trustee, v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., 367 Ill. 82, 10 N.E.2d 378;Noorman v. Department of Public Works and Buildings, 366 Ill. 216, 8 N.E.2d 637), and will not lie......
-
People ex rel. O'Meara v. Smith
...determine damages to the property. There was no physical invasion or taking of the lot, itself. In O'Meara v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., 367 Ill. 82, 10 N.E.2d 378, we held O'Meara could not enjoin the Department of Public Works and Buildings because it was an agen......
-
People ex rel. Henry Marble Co. v. Nudelman
...particularly where this would be necessary to warrant a reversal of a judgment or decree. O'Meara v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., 367 Ill. 82, 10 N.E.2d 378. This disposes of those parts of the answer as to which appellants said they had no sufficient knowledge or in......