The Springfield v. Hall

Decision Date31 January 1873
Citation1873 WL 8140,67 Ill. 99
PartiesTHE SPRINGFIELD AND ILLINOIS SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAY COMPANYv.ROBERT HALL.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cass county; the Hon. CHARLES TURNER, Judge, presiding.

This was a proceeding commenced by the appellant against appellee, to condemn land for right of way. After the institution of the proceeding, and before the assessment of damages, the act of 1872, relating to right of way, took effect. By the act of 1852, under which the proceeding was commenced, the jury were required to find the amount of the compensation for the land actually taken, and the amount of damage, if any, to land not taken, separately, and the jury were authorized to set off benefits against damages. Under the latter act benefits were not allowed to be set off.

The jury awarded the defendant $275 damages. The court refused to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, and the petitioner appealed.

Mr. G. POLLARD, for the appellant.

Mr. CYRUS EPLER, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a proceeding to condemn a right of way, commenced under the act of 1852. Before the trial in the circuit court the act of 1872 had taken effect, and the damages were assessed under the rule prescribed in that act. This was unquestionably right. The later act expressly repealed all conflicting provisions in the former, and where proceedings of this character were in fieri, it would necessarily follow that they must be completed under the new law. The State has the right to say on what terms it will allow its right of eminent domain to be exercised, so long as anything remains to be done by the corporation in order to complete the condemnation of the land.

Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • McGrew v. Granite Bituminous Paving Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1913
    ... ... upon the contractor, but is that of the city alone. Keith ... v. Bingham, 100 Mo. 300; Springfield v. Baker, ... 56 Mo.App. 637; Hickman v. Kansas City, 120 Mo. 116; ... Werth v. Springfield, 22 Mo.App. 12; Clemens v ... Ins. Co., 184 ... of Vicksburg v. Herman, 72 Miss. 211; Vandevere v ... Kansas City, 107 Mo. 83; County v. Brower, 117 ... Pa. St. 647; Railroad v. Hall, 78 Tex. 169; ... Brown v. Seattle, 5 Wash. 35; Chicago v ... Taylor, 125 U.S. 161. (4) Consequential damages for ... change of grade of ... ...
  • State v. Sanders
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1945
    ... ... trial, the right to any benefits as an off-set may be ... eliminated by the legislature. Springfield & I. S.E ... Railway Co. v. Hall, 67 Ill. 99. The legislature in providing ... for the exercise of eminent domain may, in its discretion, ... ...
  • St. Joseph & I.R. Co. v. Cudmore
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1891
    ... ... Long's Appeal (1878), 87 Pa. 114; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Patton (1876), 9 W.Va. 648; McCrea ... v. Railroad (1871), 3 S.C. 381; Springfield & S. E ... Ry. Co. v. Hall (1873), 67 Ill. 99 ... ...
  • Taylor Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm'n 
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1922
    ...plaintiff in error cannot be permitted to raise it now. Wood v. Child, 20 Ill. 209;Smith v. Bryan, 34 Ill. 364;Springfield & Illinois Southeastern Railway Co. v. Hall, 67 Ill. 99;Holcomb v. People, 79 Ill. 409;Dobbins v. First Nat. Bank, 112 Ill. 553;Winslow v. People, 117 Ill. 152, 7 N. E.......
  • 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