Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1880-04-09


judgment"
O'Connors vs.. Pittsburgh, Is Penn.
St. 1877, was an action on the case
brought by Michael O'Connor, Roman
Catholic Bishop of Pittsburgh, for the
use of the Roman Catholic congregation
OF st. Paul's Church, Pittsburgh, VS.. the
Mayor, Aldermen and citizens OF Pitts
burgh. The church was much dam
aged and ruined by lowering the grade
OF the street. The jury found q
verdict for $1,000 damages for plain
tiff, Notwithstanding which Lowrie, j.,
entered judgment on reserved questio q
for defendants. In the Supreme Court
Gibson, G. j., said: "We have had this
case reargued in order to discover II
possible some way to relieve the plain
titf consistently with law, but | grleve to
say / have discovered none. To the
Commonwealth here, as to the King oil
England. belongs the franchise OF every
highway rs trustee for the public; and
streets, regulated and repaired by the
authority OF municipal corporation,
are as much highways as are rivers, rail.
roads, canals or public roads laid out
by authority Of the Quarter Sessions. ="
Ii must be admitted that
while it is nequitable to injure the pro-
perty OF an individual for the benefit oil
the many, it would be impossible for a
corporation to bear the pressure OF sue
ccssive common law actions for the con-
tinuance OF a nuisance, each verdict
being more severe than the preceding
one. The modification OF the remedy
would be for the Legislature, which can
turn compensation for q permanent
detrimont into the price OF prospec-
tive license. but to attain complete
justice, every damage to private prop
erty ought to be compensated by the
State or corporation that occasioned II,
and q general statutory remedy ought to
be provided to assess the value.
Tho constitutional provision for the
case Of private property taken for public
use extends not to the case Of property
mjurey or destroyed; but 1t follows not
that the omission may not be supplied
by ordinary legislation. No property
was taken in this instance, but the cut
ting down OF the street consequent on
tho reduction Of its grade, left the build
ing useless, and the ground on which
it stands worth no more than the ex-
pense of sinking it to the common level.
The loss To the congregation IL a total
one, while the gain TO property in the
neighborhood is immense. The Legls-
laturc that Incorporated the city never
dreamed that il was laying the :ounda-
ton OF such injustice; but as the charter
stands il is unavoidable"
There is in the written constitu-
ton OF all the States ample
protection against the taking OF private
property for public use without Just
compensation. But observation teaches
us that often private property is rem
dered almost, il not quite, valucless by
public improvements, when not ono
foot of it is taken. This was the case, rs
the Court informs US, in 0'Connor ys.
Pittsburgh; and at common law there
was absolutely no redress for the suffer
er.
4 man owns little strip OF land near
the line OF proposed railroad. There
may be land condemned up to his line,
the road being located on the land oil his
neighbor. The road benefits his neigh
Dor because he has large farm, and the
are considerable To him,
while the small strip is almost ruined.
The one gets damages for the land taken,
but the other gets no damages Tor the
injury done to his land.
\ municipal corporation makes u
change in tho grade OF principal
street. One man owns beautiful man
sion ON the summit OF the hill. 1t is a
great benefit to the whole city,
and particularly to the owners
OF lots on said street, who have not yet
built thereon, that the street should
have a better grade; the Council OF the
city determine to make the change.
A cut up to the very line OF the mans
lot on the summit, is made iii cen feet
deep: everybody in the city except that
man is benefited, but his property is
ruined.
lie cannot use it as it is, and II II
were practicable to lower his brick man
sion, It would cost him more than it was
worth.
The common law says ho is without
remedy. His property WIS not take, Tor
public use, but was II not damaged Tor
public use: and is not the injury the
same in character il not extept as II 1t
had been actually taken7 Why should
one man suffer all the loss for the bene-
fit of the public7 II the change was
necessary for the public good, does not
Justice require that the public for whose
good was made, should pay for the dam
ages accrued by it, This rule puts all
the citizens on an equality; the common
law rule, makes the one suffer Tor the
many. Ii was TO prevent this manifest
injustice that Sec. 0 in our Bill OF Rights
was inserted in the Constitution and
adopted by the people. 1t declares
that private property shall not he taken
or damaged for public use without Just
The effect OF this sec
ton is to declare that q mans property
rights shall not be invaded Tor public
use unless he receives just compensa-
ton; and that his right OF property shall
not be- invaded by inilicting a dam
age upon the property Ter public use,
though not ldlsn, as well as that the
corpus Of the property itself shall be
The bill OF rights in the Hi
nois Constitution OF 1870 contains a sim
liar provision. and the Supreme Court
OF that city has gwen it the same con.
slruction.
City OF Pekin VS.. Breton, 81 ILL.,, Az.
Same VS. Winkle, -, ILL.,, sc.
City OF Bloomington vs. Brokan, {"
Ill. 1874.
City OF Shawneetown vs.. Mason, 81,
Ill, 337.
City of Elgin VS.. Eaton, So, ILL.,, 5S5.
The other Illinois cases referred to by
the learned counsel for the defendant,
which were decided, subsequent to the
case in S3 Illinois. and which hold =
contrary doctrine. AL arose bdOre the
adoption OF the Illinois Constitution oi
1870.
The Harmony Mtlls strike.
TRoy, y. Y, Apnl S.-The striking
Of the Harmony Mills to-
day refused TO receive from the strlk-
ers a paper containing the terms for the
settlement Of the differences. The