White v. Metro. West Side Elevated R. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1894 |
| Citation | 154 Ill. 620,39 N.E. 270 |
| Parties | WHITE et al. v. METROPOLITAN WEST SIDE ELEVATED R. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Cook county; James Goggin, Judge.
Condemnation suit by the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Company against Hugh A. White and others. There was judgment of condemnation. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.
This is a proceeding instituted by the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Company for the condemnation of certain property for its right of way. The premises belonging to appellants, and sought to be appropriated by the company, are described in the petition as the ‘south fifty feet of the north fifty-five and seventy-one one-hundredths feet of the west seventy and one-half feet of that part lying east of the Bowery and south of William (now called Tilden) street, of block twenty-six, in the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the west half, and the west half of the northeast one-quarter of section 17, township 39 north, range 14 east of the Third principal meridian, and marked ‘Lot 6’ on the plat shown herein.' This lot is located upon Congress street, at the north and east corner of Congress street and the Bowery, and has a frontage of about 71 feet on Congress street, and extends north to the street called Tilden street. The north line of the right of way sought to be acquired is 5.70 feet south of and parallel to the south line of Tilden street, and is fifty feet in width extending south from that line. The appellants, Hugh A. White and George M. Bogne and John Roche, trustees under the last will and testament of Allen C. Lewis, deceased, filed a cross petition, setting up that, in addition to the premises described in the petition, they are also the owners of the whole block of ground immediately north of said premises, and separated only by Tilden street; that both tracts (the one north and and the one south of Tilden street) were purchased with the intention of using the same together as one property and one plant for a polytechnic institute, contemplating an expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars in the constructing completing and equipping of buildings; that the market value of each of said tracts is greater because of the ownership of the other in connection therewith; that the appropriation by petitioner of the tract described in the petition will damage and decrease the market value of the land north of Tilden street to the extent of $50,000, and will prevent the improvement of each of said tracts for school purposes as contemplated, and will interfere with its use for other purposes, and will cause a loss to the respondents and to said property north of Tilden street in the sum of $50,000; that the damages to respondents' property are special and peculiar, and are actual and physical, and not such as will be caused to property generally in the vicinity; that by the operation of petitioner's road, soot, cinders, smoke, etc., will be thrown upon respondents' property north of Tilden street, and will materially affect and lessen the market value of the same $50,000 or more. On a trial before a jury the appellants offered to show the damage to the property north of Tilden street by reason of the construction and operation of the railroad upon the property south of Tilden street; but the petitioner objected to the offered evidence, and the court held that, as no part of the property north of Tilden street was taken, the evidence was not admissible. The jury returned a verdict for $8,280.11 for the property taken and for damages to that portion of the property lot 6 not taken, upon which the court rendered a judgment. The following plat, introduced in evidence, shows the streets and location of the property involved:
Image 1 (4.62" X 6.78") Available for Offline PrintE. H. Gary, for appellants.
E. J. Harkness and W. W. Gary, for appellee.
CRAIG, J. (after stating the facts).
Section 13 of article 2 of the constitution provides: It will be observed that no part of the block of ground north of Tilden street was taken by the railway...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Conservation v. Franzen
...is no requirement that unity of use be pleaded or proved. In support of the last argument defendants cite White v. West Side Elevated Ry. Co., 154 Ill. 620, 39 N.E. 270 (1894); City of Chicago v. Equitable Life Soc., 8 Ill.2d 341, 134 N.E.2d 296 (1956) and past decisions reviewed in those o......
-
St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railroad Co. v. Aubuchon
...and if such unity of use has not existed, damages should not be allowed to the entire tract. Railroad v. Doran, 15 Minn. 230; White v. Railroad, 154 Ill. 620; Sharp U.S. 191 U.S. 341; Railroad v. Wilkins, 45 Kan. 674; Gibson v. Fifth Av. Bridge Co., 192 Pa. St. 55; Railroad v. Norcross, 137......
-
Essex Storage Electric Company, Inc. v. Victory Lumber Co.
... ... 312, 37 L.Ed. 463, 13 S.Ct ... 622; [93 Vt. 447] White v. Metropolitan, etc., ... R. Co., 154 Ill. 620, 39 N.E ... found that so much of this as stands on the west side can be ... manufactured without additional expense by ... ...
-
Gaines v. City Of Calhoun
...S. 335; Mooney v. N. Y. El. Co., 16 Daly, 145, 9 N. Y. S. 522; Chicago v. Spoor, 190 Ill. 340, 60 N. E. 540; White v. Metropolitan West Side El. R. Co., 154 Ill. 620, 39 N. E. 270; Gibson v. Fifth Ave. Bridge Co., 192 Pa. 55, 43 A. 339, 73 Am. St. Rep. 795; Minnesota Valley R. R. Co. v. Dor......