The Lafayette v. Winslow
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Parties | THE LAFAYETTE, BLOOMINGTON & MISSISSIPPI RAILROAD COMPANYv.CHARLES M. WINSLOW et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. CHARLES H. WOOD, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. HIGGINS, SWETT & QUIGG, for the appellants.
Messrs. HUGHES & MCCART, and Messrs. PILLSBURY & LAWRENCE, and Mr. L. E. PAYSON, for the appellees.
This was a proceeding to condemn certain land in the city of Bloomington for the roadway of the Lafayette, Bloomington and Mississippi Railroad, a company chartered by an act of the General Assembly of this State, approved February 28, 1867. The proceedings were instituted by the company under the act approved June 22, 1852. The land taken was near the centre of the city, on the east side of Main street at the terminus of the Bloomington and Normal horse railway, immediately north of and adjoining the spot where the Indianapolis, Bloomington and Western Railway crosses that street, which is understood to be the most important business street in that city, and the only one running north and south leading out of the city. The premises were made up of several buildings, which were destroyed in whole, or in part, by the appellants.
The jury found a verdict for appellees of twelve thousand dollars.
To reverse this judgment the railroad company appeal.
The first point appellants make is, that the damages are excessive. They insist, as they acquire by these proceedings only an easement in the land, the value of that easement is the measure of damages.
Much testimony was heard on both sides as to the value of the property, such testimony for the most part consisting of the opinions of witnesses. The jury seem to have taken as their guide in reaching their conclusion, the highest estimate, or nearly so, of appellees' witnesses.
??s land and city lots have no standard value, it is right and necessary to take the opinions of witnesses and to hear the facts upon which such opinions are founded. M. and Wis. R. R. Co. v. Von Hoon, 16 Wis. 257. Those opinions should be carefully compared and weighed by the jury, and a medium reached which will do justice or approximate it. We think, on such comparison, the value of the property taken was much less than the amount of the verdict, allowing reasonable compensation for the buildings destroyed.
It is contended by appellants that these should not be charged against them, as they did not, by the condemnation, become the owner thereof.
In this case the proof shows the corporation took for their purposes all the land of the owners, and to do so, destroyed the buildings upon it. The constitution, in the Bill of Rights, sec. 13, provides, that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, without just compensation. * * The fee of land taken for railroad tracks without consent of the owners thereof, shall remain in such owners, subject to the use for which it is taken.
For all the property of appellees taken by the corporation for their uses, or damaged by it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spohn v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... conductor had frightened plaintiff off the train. Cobb v ... Griffith, 12 Mo.App. 130; Railroad v. Winslow, ... 66 Ill. 219; Ibs Co. v. Rubin, 79 Ill. 402; Howe ... Mach. Co. v. Rosine, 37 Ill. 105; Thompson on Charging ... the Jury, sec. 94, p ... ...
-
Spohn v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...conductor had frightened the plaintiff off the train, could not be removed by an instruction. Cobb v. Griffith, 12 Mo.App. 130; Railroad v. Winslow, 66 Ill. 219; Railroad Rubin, 79 Ill. 420; Howe Mch. Co. v. Rosine, 37 Ill. 105; Thompson on Charging the Jury, sec. 94, p. 124. (6) Under any ......
-
Aurora Water Company v. City of Aurora
...Poston, 77 Mo. 284; State v. Cox, 67 Mo. 392; State v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 242; Cobb v. Adams Sand Co., 12 Mo.App. 130; Railroad v. Winslow, 66 Ill. 219; Ins. Co. v. Rubin, 79 Ill. 402; Perry v. Ford, 17 Mo.App. 212. N. Gibbs, Frederick King, and H. E. Ragsdale for respondent. (1) Plaintiff's p......
-
Jacksonville, T. & K.w. Ry. Co. v. Peninsular Land, Transp. & Mfg. Co.
... ... properly admissible. Sullivan v. Lear, 23 Fla. 463, ... 2 South. Rep. 846; Railroad Co. v. Winslow, 66 Ill ... 219; 1 Thomp. Trials, § 380; Railroad Co. v. Irvin, ... 27 Ill. 178; White v. Hermann, 51 Ill. 243; ... Railroad, etc., Co. v ... ...