State v. Evans

• Decision Date: 30 June 1840
• Citation: State v. Evans, 2 Scam. 208, 3 Ill. 208, 1840 WL 2889 (Ill. 1840)
• Parties: THE STATE OF ILLINOISv.JOHN EVANS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2 Scam. 208

3 Ill. 208

1840 WL 2889 (Ill.)

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

v.JOHN EVANS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1840.

On application of M. K. Alexander, a commissioner of the board of public works, for the 4th judicial circuit, S. Connely, a justice of the peace of Edgar county, appointed three householders to assess the damages which John Evans, the defendant in error, would sustain, over and above the additional value which his lands would derive from the construction of the branch of the Central Railroad, across the lands of Evans. The damages were assessed by them at 1 cent. Evans appealed to the circuit court, and at the March term, 1839, the Hon. Justin Harlan presiding, a judgment was rendered in favor of Evans, against the state, for $325, and costs of suit. The cause was brought to this court by writ of error.

U. F. LINDER, for the plaintiff in error.

O. B. FICKLIN,

for the defendant in error.

WILSON, chief justice, delivered the opinion of the court:

Under the internal improvement law, Alexander, as one of the commissioners of the board of public works, located a railroad over the land of John Evans; and upon a claim for damages, made by Evans, on account of the construction of the road over his land, a trial was had to ascertain the amount of damages Evans was entitled to recover, under the provisions of the act of 1833, “concerning the right of way.” (R. L. 535; Gale's Stat. 584.) On the trial a question arose, as to the rule by which the jury should be governed, in assessing the damages of the claimant. The commissioner offered to prove the enhanced value of the land and timber of the claimant, by reason of the location of the road through his land. This evidence the court rejected, and decided that the proper question to be put to the witness, was, “is the injury done to the land and timber of the claimant, by the construction of the road, greater than the benefit, and if so, how much?” The court also decided, “that the supposed enhanced value of the land, by the location of the road, was not to be taken into the account.” To this opinion the agent of the state excepted.

Upon a view of the whole of this case, we are of opinion that the decision of the court was correct. The law authorizing the taking of the land of an individual, by authority of the state, for the construction of a road or other public works, provides, that when the damages claimed by the owner of the land, cannot be agreed upon by him and the agent of the state, that the same shall be assessed by three householders; and if their decision is not satisfactory, either party may take an appeal to the circuit court. The criterion of damages is the same in either mode of assessment, and is clearly pointed out by the oath required to be taken by the...