Shurtleff v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 19 June 1901
• Citation: 60 N.E. 870,190 Ill. 473
• Parties: SHURTLEFF v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

190 Ill. 473

60 N.E. 870

SHURTLEFF

v.CITY OF CHICAGO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 19, 1901.

Appeal from county court, Cook county; Russell P. Goodwin, Judge.

Proceedings by the city of Chicago to lay out and open Oakdale avenue, in which commissioners were appointed to report the compensation to be paid the owners of private property to be taken or damaged. Plaintiff, Benjamin Shurtleff, appeared and filed objections to the commissioners' report. From a judgment on a verdict in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

D. G. Robertson and Cyrus Heren, for appellant.

Charles M. Walker, Corp. Counsel, Robert Redifield, Asst. Corp. Counsel, and William M. Pindell, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The city of Chicago, appellee, instituted this proceeding in the county court of Cook county to lay out and open Oakdale avenue from Burling street to North Clark street, in said city. Commissioners were appointed to ascertain and report the just compensation to be paid to the owners of private property to be taken or damaged for the street, and also what real estate would be benefited by the improvement, and the amount of such benefits; and they made their report of such compensation, and gave a description of property which, in their judgment, would be specially benefited by the improvement, with the amount of benefit to each lot, tract, or parcel of land. Benjamin Shurtleff, appellant, being the owner of lots assessed for such benefits, appeared and filed objections, among which were the following: That the improvement was a private and local one, of no general public benefit, and that he had before that time donated for said Oakdale avenue a strip of land of the value of $15,000, largely in excess of said assessment; and the commissioners failed to appraise the value of the land so donated, or to apply such value as a set-off against the benefits assessed. There was a hearing of said objections before the court, and they were overruled. Thereafter the case came on for hearing on the question of benefits before a jury, which returned a verdict against appellant. The court rendered judgment on the verdict, and this appeal followed.

Appellant's property is located west of that portion of Oakdale avenue to be opened, and there are intervening streets, so that it is not dependent upon said portion for ingress or egress. There are streets running north and south on both sides of said property, and intersecting east and west streets, so that appellant has full access from his property to the general system of streets in the city without opening the proposed avenue. The plan to lay out and open Oakdale avenue from Burling street to North Clark street by this proceeding was originated in 1899, and appellant proved on the hearing before the court that in 1891 he dedicated a strip of land between Sheffield avenue and Mildred avenue for an extension of Oakdale avenue between said streets, that the value of the land dedicated was from $5,000 to $8,000, and that the land so dedicated was accepted by the city, and forms that portion of Oakdale avenue between said Sheffield avenue and Mildred avenue. The land so dedicated was several blocks west of the place where it was proposed to open the avenue, and constituted another part of such avenue. On the trial before the jury the same fact of the previous dedication for a part of the avenue in another place was proved, and appellant asked the court to instruct the jury that, in making up their verdict, they should ascertain what land had been so donated by appellant for the street, and appraise the value thereof, and apply it as a set-off against...