, 1874-07-15
SOUTHPORT AVENUE.
Dcc's1on Of Judge Farwcll on tho
Railroad Question.
The Injunction Granted.


The (,,:,u,,,;,,, cx,,,Ao5 S"
-
Tho following /. t,,o decision in tu,, Of zuars
S"o.t @ uunsofcu yestofday morning. IN tio
oeso OF William Lango ct al. against tho CHI
49, rSa"e. As.no ts,,o"a oo'nPens aaa tso ohl'
oaSo q Evanston Nallroad Company, and the
oano no Of 1asorty against tho Sumo dofonaanta:
upon sworn S0a Iii % ss p,, 1 s ;s a
temporary nuaciaa ta sc.san ts assss s ra rs
Tssnup e. sSaps @ s%so1 S s 5 @
layn '' Aos ~ 'o' pa' ~ '"e't "-'"''' 1"'
- -
to show that. n1thonah sout''lor hycnt.s !: public
at!c9t, ~ W. tat Tue itga TITO 70 no sae n N lo oy
liz f. au o III H. nr T. y 1nt 3n
% ~ M .ue .no ea .. u M o
III sas paeofs on eosn saes ase % 10 hoa aa tso'
L., TIE IT.. uaLh 1hxnEs s.,,os,,, ~.
str"ns n"to IN front ar ta ,aH1 H"n ,o. '1,S
s,sss o. sa t. % XIV ss h;s 49, s f,
soss afyS @ %
and dangsros, undoubtedly deprsolato conp'ainansss
preportY by It east 50 por that dofeldans have
panps If os out,u m liz arnnt ",noca o ~
1c,s n,nnoc mr. tate,, aIv ssns tnwar1 ha~fn1 III
pr ss ras
q using tAs saao untW hoy ahai Asve p.tl II son,
ss g19auis th' aages to which they use acsssay s'
1s'sa' ,,.,.o ,-.r,,
TINT TIM .reat ,8 Int a. fe"t n With bnrnu 70 ,eos
~, cnch e1a lsvotst II b, edavoit. II a,,nosr fro
in orIrsnro ~ T"nn ~ 1a7o racarrai ~ ~ ~. ID,
a,,thorlzoa to consruce ID the atrtsf and operate
double track. and tioT arc required to- ncrnit nuy
person or comnanY huthnrized NV tin ctv
to construct side-trscka to illtcrsect with tIie
ha E %
funiOer-yard, .coal-yard, or mnnufnctory tit,,ats
1tain ooo iest 9t te railroad a to deliver freight
without discrimination, and they also required
reasonable consideration to port any otAur raiirond
company to DO hereafter designated br the Common
counol not having riput of entrance into the oy,
to uso the tracks Of tho dofcnas and also to permit
sny oter ra!lrgad ; company having depot in tho cty
to dsisntanss for tha purpose s. receiving or Dc.
oun NEW CONSTITUTION
provides TART q sec. 1 tlat "priyate property shall
10. bo aa9a Or damaged for rs'Go sao Without 1st
tbo atatdto shall be a.certancd by fury az aha bs
prescribed BY law" DY tho act entitled Eulinent
operation july l. 1s73 1t ia In aaanco proyitol that
my poraon or company authorized BY nv to t.ko or
danago prlvate property for public lao slal bsfore
entcring upon tho work, Institute and prosecute to
Judgment nroeeeJ!uHa In tic Circuit or County
Court for the purpose Of having tho damages Of ho
ass ef dsmass n ot me rs
unon In iho rasno suit rno 49, da,nagea ] s"'s arc
e 10 asrestoi by Jury, md upon their verdict tic
eIss daaaass saa s toaa aas LILO same 'AS
= A.. =, .,,. ,s,, r IS on,EsrfD, ;ss .,o, r,. ,,
ert ~ T. t,n,I ~ ~ twt "t .nEar l,urnt t,est m fhar
Gt,y a 9I ~ ~, n.cs1nn "orn ~ n
son1eShnt sn,isr atatuta Tint atnt,to In not ike
ours on the rolnt unaor consideration. Our atatue
t.e conimuy shall pay hs owner Of the property 20
10 ls tuEoi Or damagcl tho aum to he uscefiued by
tho verdict Of Jury: ;.,.,,.,,.,,, -, ,,.-.,,
IN tim nort of tho cfnninnts ilat IN comnn,nonts
tto lot, not according to ther own Showing, nuke out
sraa s @ ~ H. i IL 'nrs ~ IN r
1sndnls 4 taken or avs ss h ots
nn Inn stra.t NJ f1Ii with 1at It is cemnatet for
tn ~ city wlcn anhor;zcd bv INV. to ajjnw rnilroa
tbe strcets and that IT, III such case tic lots fro,tiu
On The street Dr0 delrecRte IN value tie company ii
mt n fnuit. Int liz oYsr il Unfortunate suI must
besr Tin ioss tst Ills Is ony one Of msny instances
ID Which property is anaged without any right OF nc
ton agaaat those wl:o arc tle of the damage
Tlio n;icstion thus proscutcl ID Quo Of
l'' T.E FIRST iSron14scE;
but IL It question. lGAHt THIS
Gp,rt If tho provision In cur ue Couaut ton riy-
Inn to thr owner Of property da,agod ns well MI to
tie owner OF property taaen right 10 comte,,eaou
ts In noint Of fact merely deeiurfory Of what tho
Ic waa before and II Tic doctrlo cottniuel in tDa
opinjons Of tho supreme Court 10 Moses vs. FittsLurg
4 Fort 'WaYne 'Rnirpaa Company, q Illinois. sid,
and ID Alurpby Vs. City of Chicagp'
20 IIlInois, e,7y1, IL 10 10 taken
ia tts broadest senan as n rreHent doctrine Of that
ort md te lnsrs of he Etate then the Uo.npln111-
sntg aye no Ground to stand upon in Tits nuit aud
1heir molten For M Injunction must be tyarrt,lrf
II anpcnrs however, that tho doctrine referred to
has beep "
,,.rrn,.,,x ,,on,rrrn avn 71v,rv1, >:
H.. ,.,t ,tn. 1 - se,i,n. 80 ,,o,,,.,z ,
t!}, Il ~ r,u i, ~" rii,n"s sn, Tnni,a,,o- Iina,
inran ~ " Wa.arn it,iirn,J i,on,n"n~ "a ir.rtnv K
s TSs." r'r. tan NJ, ~ T,fs"nttt i31oori.rtn,' !,
s3' 1,i,ri rnnna! s.tn a9s III. ~
1,.ss. 81 1rrata rsr nna1 n1f 'chicnnma ~
to n<s 49, Vtisoa u. su '1s. Fnc, T.. vao,s.1r ~
.iai tuau Mu ~ os tarts1a - ~ ~ tro',,, 3t,s
.seo ~, eu , ~ ~ n .ao ~ ~ x thnn w. .n
tnses @ -. tn .o % tur snU r." t H;tn -
: ~ M a.! t H. % ~ tSase O. ,a
- - ~ tt r.aa - IL " sios ~ o n -;
te lr3t Of ti,s rrsyajIiuR Tendency Of tho coura
throughout tho contry iiavo como 10 tho conclusion
INV " IuR$ HOW ue 2oIeaActea
. o..., IN @ 0F3a s ananx.nN aa,tN,,o ,.,,,,,,ox
moi no,nnrnsaion II mt to o as for ,,ronsrty dam.
pgefl us in thn case before un.
Feeling 1nysclf therefore, at liberty TO examine and
dects this Question Upon la merits, AaFe according
III