Vill. of Winnetka v. Clifford

• Decision Date: 18 February 1903
• Citation: 66 N.E. 384,201 Ill. 475
• Parties: VILLAGE OF WINNETKA v. CLIFFORD et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

201 Ill. 475

66 N.E. 384

VILLAGE OF WINNETKA

v.CLIFFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 18, 1903.

Error to Appellate Court, First District.

Action by Annie Clifford and others against the village of Winnetka and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant village brings error. Affirmed.Stacy W. Osgood and Millard F. Riggle, for plaintiff in error.

Howard Ames (Eugene Clifford, of counsel), for defendants in error.

This was an action brought by the defendants in error, Annie Clifford and others, against the plaintiff in error, the village of Winnetka, and others, in the circuit court of Cook county, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the closing of Maple street, in the village of Winnetka, across the right of way of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company. On the trial the suit was dismissed as to all but the plaintiff in error. A verdict was returned by the jury for the defendants in error for damages in the sum of $3,250. On appeal the Appellate Court for the First District considered the damages excessive, but, on a remittitur of all in excess of $1,000, affirmed the judgment for that amount. Plaintiff in error has brought the case before this court on writ of error. Defendants in error are the owners of the south 1 1/4 acres of block 64, in the village of Winnetka. This block is bounded on the north by Ash street, on the east by Cedar street, on the south by Willow street, and on the west by Maple street. The right of way of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company cuts off a triangular piece from the southwest corner of the block, and consequently the property of defendants in error abuts on the right of way the length of that side of this triangle. Maple street was an old county road running through the village, and crossed the right of way at this corner of the block. Willow street, on the south of the block, also crossed the right of way at this southwest corner of the block. About where the right of way intersects the west line of the block stood a brick store belonging to defendants in error, and on Willow street there was a frame dwelling house on their lot. The lot also had on it a good well, and was connected with the city water main on Maple street. The lot has a frontage of 35 to 40 feet on Maple street, 195 to 200 feet on Willow street, and 187 feet on Cedar street. In December, 1896, the village entered into an agreement with the railway company by which the village agreed to close Maple street across the right of way, and the company agreed to build a subway on Willow street under their right of way. April 1, 1897, the village had a fence built across Maple street along the line of the right of way, thus closing the street to travel over the right of way. The subway was constructed on Willow street under the right of way, and was protected on the side by a high stone wall. The traffic that formerly passed along Maple street had to go around along the other streets, and the rental value of the store building of defendants in error was greatly depreciated. Maple street has become a cul de sac or blind alley, terminating in front of the property of defendants in error. The well on their premises was greatly damaged by the construction of the subway in Willow street and the sinking of catch-basins in the street. The connection with the water main on Maple street was also shut off by the village. There is a main in Willow street, however, with which connection could be made.

The following plat shows the situation of the premises in controversy:

Image 1 (3.32" X 3.63") Available for Offline Print

CARTER, J. (after stating the facts).

Counsel for plaintiff in error insist that the injury or damage suffered by defendants in error by the closing of Maple street across the railroad right of way is no more than will be sustained by all other persons in the village of Winnetka who might have occasion to pass that way, and that, although the closing of the street might cause them greater inconvenience, still that fact would not entitle them to a recovery. If the damages sustained by defendants in error are of...