South Chicago R.R. Co. v. Dix

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation1883 WL 10384,109 Ill. 237
Decision Date20 November 1883

109 Ill. 237
1883 WL 10384 (Ill.)


Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa Nov. 20, 1883.

[109 Ill. 238]

APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. RICHARD PRENDERGAST, Judge, presiding.

This was a petition by the South Chicago Railroad Company, under the Statute of Eminent Domain, for the condemnation of a strip of ground thirty feet in width, extending north from Seventy-first street, in Hyde Park, through blocks 12, 7 and 4, crossing Seventieth and Sixty-ninth streets, to a lot of land, part of block 4, occupied by the water-works of the village of Hyde Park and town of Lake,--a distance of 1651 feet. The petition alleges the petitioner to be a corporation organized under the laws of the State, and authorized to construct and operate a line of railroad from a point on the line of the Illinois Central railroad between the stations of Hyde Park and Grand Crossing, on said road, in the township of Hyde Park, to the village of South Chicago, in said township; that petitioner had located its line of road, and that the said strip of ground was necessary for the right of way, side-tracks, depot grounds, appurtenances, etc., required by the petitioner to construct its railroad. Certain of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the petition, and the affidavit of William D. Kerfoot in support of the motion. In opposition to the motion, the petitioner submitted its articles of incorporation, an ordinance passed by the president and trustees of the village of Hyde Park on the 3d of April, 1882, giving the petitioner permission to construct its line in said village, and locating the part in question upon the strip sought to be condemned, and the affidavit of Edward T. Jeffrey. A plat of the premises was offered, showing the land described in the petition, and the location of the railroad. The court sustained the motion, and entered an order dismissing the petition, and the petitioner appealed to this court.

By the ordinance of the board of trustees of the village of Hyde Park, of April 3, 1882, the petitioner is granted permission to locate and construct a line of railroad upon the

[109 Ill. 239]

following route in the village of Hyde Park, namely: Beginning at a point on the Illinois Central railroad near Seventieth street, thence south-easterly on a curve to Seventy-first street, and thence east on the center thirty feet of Seventy-first street to Railroad avenue; thence on Railroad avenue, and along that part of it lying within fifteen feet on each side of the center line thereof, etc., to South Chicago; also, from a point on the first described line, near the east line of section 24, northerly, on a curve, to a point near the west line of Yates avenue, thence north on land west of Yates avenue to the Hyde Park water-works. The last is across the lands here sought to be condemned. The ordinance further provides, “that one or more tracks shall be laid down and ready for operation, from the junction with the Illinois Central railroad to South Chicago, and from that line to the Hyde Park water-works, within twelve months from the passage of this ordinance; and said company shall switch to said water-works for the village of Hyde Park, at the usual rates charged for similar service, such coal, in car load lots, as may be needed for use at said works, in default whereof (including other requirements) the rights and privileges hereby granted shall cease, and be null and void.”

The affidavit of Kerfoot sets forth that he is a real estate agent, and that the strip of ground in the petition mentioned is a strip which, after making the curve therein described, extends upon a line perpendicular to said Seventy-first street, north, to the water-works of the village of Hyde Park; that the strip is now actually occupied by the railroad company, not as a part of its line to South Chicago, but as a branch or spur road, running northerly therefrom, and is used, or designed to be used, by certain coal dealers who supply, or are expected to supply, coal to be used at said water-works; that such branch is not designed to be used or available for use by the general public, either for freight or passenger

[109 Ill. 240]

traffic, or for any other or different use than that to which it is to be put by said coal dealers.

The affidavit of Jeffrey is, that he is the general superintendent of the South Chicago Railroad Company; that the company has completed a double...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • South Park Com'rs v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 8, 1911
    ...grant of powers. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Town of Lake, supra; [93 N.E. 913]South Chicago Railroad Co. v. Dix, 109 Ill. 237;Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Wiltse, 116 Ill. 449, 6 N. E. 49; Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Railway Co. v. Sanitary District, su......
  • Kansas & Texas Coal Railway v. Northwestern Coal & Mining Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 26, 1901
    ...a public use, the private benefit is immaterial. Talbot v. Hudson, 16 Gray 417; Moore v. Sandford, 151 Mass. 285; Railroad v. Dix, 109 Ill. 237; Kean v. Elizabeth, 54 N. J. L. 462; Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227; Salt Co. v. Brown, 7 W.Va. 191; Bloodgood v. Railroad, 18 Wend. 9, 21, 83. (9) ......
  • Westport Stone Co. v. Thomas, 21,305.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 10, 1911, and not by the extent to which the right is or will be used.” 15 Cyc. 590, 591, and cases cited; South Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dix, 109 Ill. 237, 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 160;St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Petty, 57 Ark. 359, 21 S. W. 884, 20 L. R. A. 434;Greasy Creek, etc., Co. v. Ely Jellic......
  • Westport Stone Company v. Thomas, 21,305
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 10, 1911 and not by the extent to which the right is or will be used." 15 Cyc. 590, 591, and cases cited; South Chicago R. Co. v. Dix (1883), 109 Ill. 237, 17 Am. and Eng. R. Cas. 157; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Petty (1893), 57 Ark. 359, 21 S.W. 884, 20 L. R. A. 434; Greasy Creek Min. Co. v. Ely......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT