, 1870-07-23

1ne plat vas acknowledged three siays before the
paasage Of The ect Of our Legislature on which
IN tae pubic. fne streets of Kinzies Addition
ss ba, MT e. Sevs 9s t9s RE5sn
~: Biock = i tSe northeast ~ sloss ''sa .!
block, strip on the frnns Of s,td block extending
soutn beyond the cenrc OF the blu /, bc!us cut un
by Lake Mchixnn Thr only r,rt!ou Of raii street,
ne recorded plat to hare remA,ued anore The
tsDalDs tron the ' soas5 70 he s'tp Ro.ia. "a.
anon Lol II stee n ss ,a sssd oai
16t11y-stx feet in x1dth aud the st.ip OF land iu
said Street In front Of the south part Of Block 81,
tnrtt feet vide The fact that this strip Of land,
IN saia street, bosucsed upon Lake Michigan, gaze
81 time, have become Of great 'ra!ut, aud hence
the present lluxation IN rcfer:nce to Of the
| los lad ous upon the accretlon.
1 IL Ncud now oe dl1i1cun to state precisely when
The elluEsun commenced to iorui upon this "Trip Of
Land tn said street The plaintiff CLAIMS that 1t
Gid not commence forming until the JcaEs 1s4+ Or
1875: The defendant that II began as early Is 1910.
| BY gradual increment the rand mas extended east
Of Block 81 until 1t Is NOW alleged thar more than
ihe present lake shore. The lots nuN IN contro-
| vet<J aleAyr Of this A1iuyium.
| On The lsil. Mach. 1sis. the plaintiff was de-
| cllTcd bankrupt nldtr The provisions OF the
act VI 1S41, and the defendant clalsns, through
| mfs1e couyeJanccs, ftum the assignee In bank
rupscy. Tae planl1n ins,sts tAat The assignee tn
BANKRUPTCY TOOK no title IN said street by the de-
cree. aud that the title and the subsequent ac-
crEtionA now belong 70 him thinxie.,
II y admitted I, al PARTIES tna: the Interest u
hihzie Immediately. previous t the decree IN
nanlrurtcy vas fec simple title tn the strip uf
land htsove described as existing In said street
subject to the public easement; and the rst ques-
uon IN this case II, That asked In the brief OF the
learned counsel for the plaintiff, ." Was this naked
lcG ihus sub1ect to perpetual right Of USE In tnt
PUBIC p.opetts, or rtTht of property, IN Knz!e,
~ ~ nense "nsea taose terms ar used N "
mame!s Ma oi tnat statute, thar, by It's operative
nM snese ..i snoo!a PAS % ne assignee u hank
deate u un nv nm. Inc f. esH n OF qs1e On 1a
nentt er =. - pup''c 0se LII ool SstAt csuea W tnt
osnA ~ p,,, w..
,,ah, - sltemp!tes 70 answer nis question IN INC
shsll. foE the present assume the position OF
pts.nuh ~ counsel 70 be CORRECT as 70 the time
,hat hag,n tur e, yos oGsnn 20 = taai
.wo ysaIs subsequent % knzie's discharge il
s, - 1ne tn,ra secuon Of me bankrupt
aei.S tst N inc ~ 1no1.,;x "a < ,anser En-
-, -. s - 80 E'sIE1 alu .Nato " WuPt'I
" " rt3s natss ~ nna 1a,ate. wnetosr tai personal
sr.r tot1n =. ssS5 nannSthups' e1cept as ~ nefe-
e,r, ~ n9o snsn decree oi re proper
Hcs mai - .,,s., 81 ~ q nnsl9pt ".ta!u tnls
frns ~ ~, ~ - ..,t 1EAssoa " aw. tpso Jaeto
rrs1.d nGt ~ e " su1a ae' oe ueeen 70 De ~
sne aoef wnost NY e,sF
Ana .ae same ehau se vested by the force ui the
| FotHs ueGer ~ euCn AsaRnee as BnAl, from LIME
f1tIosc
| =. IL Me AHEasHe 81 Tue p!Ant!n COUNSEL
,n9ese Nss sothirK there hut small point Of
sa'g G'tN tc1t sHt Iakt etcl3 pinl hI "QcA nan.
~ ~ oesh eedleated 70 me puoHc as street
rs..a - taena s mas oas eAasemS Snf Mnien m!ga.
hia1!e 10 sAnd street, in March, ls4a was consll-
sseh Fl 70 PC Of Vefy htie value hinIies oased fec
~ a.st inT steeL pos ap ior ranliG safe BY TIC
.nalpfice: and tns question: tecnrs. WAS that T.
| tsfe1 .property. right ol property" within
tne meaning ol the third section Of the Bank
"F7opery." sars Bouyier," Ia the night aud In
| ,etebt which a man has In lands and chAtteiar y
nspe4 a1f4 6sanes p.opssty to e. that which Is
oHni that to which one has an unrestricted right,
including all that Is oues own, whether curpoFea
T. Assn ,aH author dsaass
di.posinR 81 subject as ones OWE. This IS the
strict leRal sense of the wort as In tho expression
s1ty has been Judi ially defined, the right oLc
has IN land or chattcls; Biz 81, IT Johns $50;
comhttck. 90. e; Keenan,, s96.
All the de1nll1ons ignore the IDEA OF value In
the things owned. II there Is an exclusive right
| to thing. the law Immediately psesumes Ii "
have, at least, nominal yalue !, tic owner. AMI
the wrUnR'1'ters to at least nominal damageA
Il YRS argued. ~ plaintiffs connse, that The
osss1 o, the bsnk.urt aet VA from saies 81 TIE
IahHropts debts, md that the sale nf the naked
Zee OF hlnxfe IN Sand atrect could hare brought
Euaee Of the &C, Is c,ea. and distinct, sc must e-
And = fer simple title 70 real estate, Of howrret
little actual Value. would seem tn be property by
every accepted hednson Of the word. have
1esn referred to number Of cases III which tne
a!nefense , , between easements Ia country ruads
ana n c1ty streets Is discussed anu II Is argued
that kinzles right was not properly, because Il
vas a right IN strtes IN II city, and the burden
OF tue public easement lssh. for all purposes OF
T,R
public servttude upon city street ma5 he, AMI
generally Il, far more onerous than on country
Is Increased IN value, the value Of the fee is Ii
m!nisled nut the ute OF the owner Of the sui,
in tnc nature oi the eervitnde. fhe fncrcass 81
the burden Of the public cnsemeut, only lessons
the rn]ue OF the owners interest It In
eE In city or county, the owner Of
the fec retains every r1gh. not Inconsistent With
the necessities Of the puhlir. II rhe owner Of thr
land, over which = country road Is taId retains
an interest In all mfncs giarres and route, be re-
ta{ns II only far AZ Is compatible with the rights
Of the public On the highway.
same Interests, II Ia only ecanse the public ext
| Eency Is REcatcl. II 4 street In city Is remote
from the centres o, trade; II II situated that
| It Is seldom OF never uscA as highway, the bur
| den Of the urban scryitude may posslbly be No
greater upon It than the burden 1t d rural scrvi-
IN 1919. terminated in ti,e lake, mon Bocr 81. and
in no PLACE, in trout Of sal BLOCK, was It oI any
practicable Ealue as street While, therefore, the
! Zee OF the atreet was then OF but l!til-
xalne could hardly be said = be ..lmiuished BY
ne ,;,. taet that ~ SAND ntees vas within the eozpo
| Wnat were the rights OF plaintiff in Sand street
upon tne l.th OF MsFGh 161as
\ ne had The present fee simple title to tue stnp
- land lying in Sand street above the waters OF
the lake. s1nect 10 The rghts OF tie public as a
highway. He had, tn conjunction with the pubt!c.
rIeseut possea>oEy night IN the street, uul "a
| fhp mi
maintain s1esraAs for an invasion u his possessor,
light There are many cases that decide tnat such
ftEhta 10 street, In popunus city, are Of only
| are not rights Of property cannot be sustained
| ufon &atn"rsty
| . .APpa1enaht 70 the re aimple, the RiAtntlG hal
the right Ia hold such title, Ilyesteu oy tue cas
I nent, Ia casc the public shoui, for any reason
! permanently abandon tie occupation OF the street
and, also, The ngn. " the accrcuuu should any a.
the loss OF the soil by dccscmcnt l1 case the watef
| should enc1pscn upon The shore,
1t 10 ksid that this right to the rever1er Of the
stieetas II Is calIe, in csse Of its shandnnynsnI
by The nuhIicss 1hr.r 11ns 10, 1,Hts ~, n,sa
Utilities; and that the act o{ lSt does nor rsnyif
I that possibilities shall pass to To. asslgpce.
There Is much fosce In the learned ard elaborate
argument niet by the n)stntlff q counscl 10 shoH
,hsi Possibilities Ar ,,ot cy.rrs, ~ tbe hanemr
act Of 1sjl, TacE werr expressly namct T., ih,.
Cnllcd Statce art passed IN iss1. - >'~
| IA possibility = saws nurdli fnnr. Inv Dic, !,
| IL :. An estate found,3i m \ cnnftnvrnrT EhIc,
1nay nr nav NM hsnnen n,G i, %as ~ o.ta,"
iIsteti ma rim Of th.. = ,uon isr M
Ntlity rtpht tt,ie or any ,,rhrr thing thar was nn
10 possession or vested In nrht c.nit he rrant",,
| ~ ass1rras ~ .+rnns, 5 11 - =; auN.
] CIV So " "A7''' VIZ 'eA' f'ol'
| Ncr. ihass r1on,s n the so-cs,nd r,r.-.,op o,,
these t,1artzn r1yhis ..nossinuties sr,Ihir fh,
| lcrn, ,neaulur Of fhr trrnl "A1'" '3s
| IN fnoSe nnt, n.r,ar,j ae,so a,,ht,oau ,t,-
/ ,t1,,sI1a y. -. aeAsNy .oaSsSSa Ivy