Sherlock v. Chicago

• Decision Date: 02 November 1889
• Citation: 130 Ill. 403,22 N.E. 844
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: SHERLOCK et al. v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

130 Ill. 403

22 N.E. 844

SHERLOCK et al.

v.CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 2, 1889.

Error to circuit court, Cook county; FRANK BAKER, Judge.

Seth F. Crews and Ernest Dale Owen, for plaintiffs in error.

E. J. Harkness, for defendant in error.

WILKIN, J.

This was a proceeding in the circuit court of Cook county by defendant in error against plaintiffs in error and others, to condemn for railroad purposes certain city lots in Chicago. The jury, having heard the evidence and viewed the premises, returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs in error for $8,000 for land taken and improvements, and $275 for the inconvenience and cost of removal. Judgment having been entered on the verdict, plaintiff in error brings the case up, and assigns numerous errors on the record; among others, that the court below admitted improper evidence on behalf of petitioner. A witness called on behalf of petitioner was allowed to testify, over the objection of respondents, that he was engaged in the ‘real-estate business,’ and had in charge a certain lot 3, in Chicago, 100 feet front by 175 feet deep, which he was offering in the market for sale at $15,000,-$150 per foot.' This witness testified to no other fact in the case, but was called and sworn for the purpose of proving the offer alone; and the naked question is therefore presented, whether or not it is competent in such a proceeding, on the question of damages, to prove a mere offer by a third party to take a certain price for similar property in no way connected with that sought to be condemned. The law and sound reasoning seems to be settled against the admissibility of such evidence. Mills, Em. Dom. § 170, and authorities cited in note; Lewis, Em. Dom. § 446, and cases cited. In Davis v. Railroad Co., 11 Cush. 506, the petitioner was allowed to prove by a witness what he had offered for like property opposite that in question. Held error, THOMAS, J., saying: ‘The mere offer * * * was not competent evidence of value. The rule admitting evidence of this character is confined, and rightly, to actual sales as acts done. The limitation is founded in obvious good sense.’ In Winnisimmet Co. v. Grueby, 111 Mass. 543, it was said, in a proceeding to assess damages for the taking of land by a ferry company: ‘The company cannot introduce evidence of the amount for which an owner of land in the neighborhood has offered to sell his land.’ In Railroad Co. v. Benson, 36 N. J. Law, 557, a real-estate agent was called as a witness, and asked at what price he had offered for sale property adjoining that being condemned. Held, the evidence was properly excluded. In Lehmicke v. Railroad Co., 19 Minn. 464, (Gil. 406,) a witness testified that he...