The Chicago v. Dresel
| Decision Date | 19 May 1884 |
| Citation | 1884 WL 9850,110 Ill. 89 |
| Parties | THE CHICAGO AND EVANSTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.AUGUST DRESEL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. RICHARD PRENDERGAST, Judge, presiding.
Mr. E. WALKER, and Mr. F. J. LOESCH, for the appellant:
The loss of business and of profits derived from the use of the land is not a proper element of damages. Booker v. Venice and Carondelet Ry. Co. 101 Ill. 333; Jerseyville and Southeastern Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 106 Id. 253.
Messrs. BEAM & COOK, for the appellee:
Evidence as to the amount of traffic is legitimate to show the extent of the use the lots would be subjected in the operation of the road, as affecting the question of depreciation of value. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Chicago and Western Indiana R. R. Co. 100 Ill. 21.
As to the proper measure of damages, and the evidence proper to show the same, see Keithsburg and Eastern R. R. Co. v. Henry, 79 Ill. 292; Chicago and Iowa R. R. Co. v. Hopkins et al. 90 Id. 322; St. Louis, Jerseyville and Springfield R. R. Co. v. Kirby, 104 Id. 345.
The personal examination of the premises by the jury is in the nature of evidence, and the facts thus learned may have fully justified the verdict. Chicago and Iowa R. R. Co. v. Hopkins et al. 90 Ill. 322; Peoria and Farmington Ry. Co. v. Barnum, 107 Id. 160.
Appellee, Dresel was in the possession of lots 2 to 15, inclusive, in sub-block 10, subdivision of block 13, in Sheffield's addition to Chicago. Lots 2 to 9 were held under a lease which expires July 1, 1885. Lots 10 to 15 were owned in fee by appellee. The lots 2 to 15, inclusive, have been occupied and cultivated by appellee as an entirety, within one inclosure, since 1870. The fee to lots 2 to 5, inclusive, was in appellant, having been purchased of appellee's landlord, Lewis, pending the proceedings. The appellant, by its amended petition, undertook to condemn only so much of Dresel's leasehold interest in lots 2 to 5 as is contained in a triangular piece shown on the map, and being about one-fifth of the area of the four lots. Appellee, upon the lots 2 to 15, was carrying on an extensive hot-bed system of flower-gardening. His residence, barns, sheds, etc., are upon lots 14 and 15. The jury, on the evidence introduced, and upon a personal examination of the premises, awarded appellee $1500 as compensation for all damages resulting by reason of the taking of that part of the leasehold heretofore mentioned. It is claimed that the court erred in permitting evidence to go to the jury in regard to the profits to be derived from the land in question. We do not understand that evidence of this character was admitted by the court. When appellee was on the stand as a witness, the court, at the request of counsel for appellant, ruled that “all evidence as to the amount of work that could be done on the property, and all evidence of the probable profits from the business, is excluded from the consideration of the jury.” There may be some answers to questions propounded to the witnesses Harding and Donovan which might, without close examination of the entire evidence of the two witnesses, indicate that the court had not adhered strictly to the rule announced; but after a careful examination of the evidence we think the rule was substantially observed, and no testimony was admitted by the court on this branch of the case which conflicted with the rule, or which could prejudice appellant.
But it is said the court erred in refusing the first and fourth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Conservation v. Franzen
...even where the owner of the part condemned has a right or interest less than full ownership in the remaining part. See C. & E.R.R. Co. v. Dresel, 110 Ill. 89, 92 (1884); I., I. & I.R.R. Co. v. Conness, 184 Ill. 178, 182, 56 N.E. 402 (1900). See also Annot. 95 A.L.R.2d 887, sec. The phrase '......
-
United States v. Honolulu Plantation Co.
...399-400, 153 P. 705. But the sole dissenting note is an early case in Illinois, where the problem was not discussed. Chicago and Evanston Railroad Co. v. Dresel, 110 Ill. 89. ...
-
City of St. Louis v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
... ... 247; Pause v. Atlanta, ... 98 Ga. 92, 58 Am. St. 290, 26 S.E. 489; Jacksonville & S ... E. Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 106 Ill. 253; Chicago & ... [266 Mo. 702] Evanston R. R. Co. v. Dressel, 110 ... Ill. 89; DeBuol v. Freeport & Mississippi River Ry ... Co., 111 Ill. 499; Braun ... ...
-
City of St. Louis v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.
...Pause v. Atlanta, 98 Ga. 92, 26 S. E. 489, 58 Am. St. Rep. 290; Jacksonville & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 106 Ill. 253; Chicago & Evanston R. Co. v. Dresel, 110 Ill. 89; De Buol v. Freeport & Mississippi River Ry. Co., 111 Ill. 499; Braun v. Metropolitan W. S. El. R. Co., 166 Ill. 434, 46 N. E......