The City of Morrison v. Hinkson

• Decision Date: 30 September 1877
• Citation: 87 Ill. 587,1877 WL 9902,29 Am.Rep. 77
• Parties: THE CITY OF MORRISONv.HORACE HINKSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

87 Ill. 587

1877 WL 9902 (Ill.)

29 Am.Rep. 77

THE CITY OF MORRISON

v.HORACE HINKSON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1877.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. W. W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.

Mr. O. F. WOODRUFF, for the appellant.

Mr. C. J. JOHNSON, and Mr. IRA O. WILKINSON, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE DICKEY delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an action brought by appellee against appellant, for injuries to his residence, situated on ground adjoining a street, in which appellant has erected near to the residence, and operated by steam, water works for raising water for the use of the city, by which the use of the property of plaintiff was rendered less valuable, and the value of the property impaired.

Appellee, being the owner of the ground adjoining the street, built his residence thereon several years before the city commenced the construction of these works, and occupied the same with his family and still continues to live there. In 1873, the city erected in the street a water tank 30 feet in diameter. This tank gave way and did plaintiff some damage, which was adjusted and paid by the city. In 1874 the city rebuilt the tank, and put in a steam engine and thereby operated a pump. The works are located about 40 feet from plaintiff's house, and some 15 to 20 feet from the line of his grounds. By the use of this engine (especially when the wind is in the east) smoke and soot are cast in and upon the residence to such a degree as to interfere seriously and materially with the comfort of the occupants, and so as to injure and impair the value of the property. In the circuit court the verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Appellant first insists, that, “owning the fee to the public streets in the city,” appellant is not confined to the mere right to pass over and upon them, * * * but had lawful right to erect and operate these works, without responsibility to the adjoining proprietor for any injury necessarily resulting therefrom.

Property may be dedicated to the public for a great variety of purposes. It may be for the purposes of a street; it may be for pleasure grounds; it may be for burial purposes; it may be for the location of water works.

Where a person buys a city lot bordering upon a tract of ground set apart or dedicated to any public use, he takes it subject to all the annoyances incident to the use of the property for the purpose of the dedication....