, 1881-05-18
TIE RAILROADS.
Adverse Decision OF the Supreme
Court in the Case of the
Lake Shore ". tl,s Western Indiana In
tho Matter Of Damages for
Crossing.


.-
Oomnlste Oollanse Of the sw;tohmen'a
"''Dp,..y u.....ms ou,1a p'1 r.. " suo om'u w"sn
vvrsrr,S ,en,.vA
.,,o .. 70 1s II. So. nsN - ,,,.,,,
soutysn u d i ,he Chicago, Rock 1sia,,d Z
nis sasa fss Il csssa ns Ssssss s assss %s;s s
the Circuit Cur. Of Cook County, m oplu-
ion was tiled IN the Office oi the Supreme
Court Clerk at Ottawa OF the l4th Inst.
Justice sieldun delivered the opinion and
reviewed the case at length. Ho said ,ha. on
1AaIc" MATTEL, 10; leso. !oe In'eako western
Indiana Rnttroal filed tts petition In the
County Court Of Cook County to condemn
@ tracts a. of % the faka @ Snnr " na i,,rk 's Ts.,n nj,
,"uns n".,s y. uu h"ne o"ols nu nusn as'a"u
Na,lFoaus. NWas eial!hea tnas tn's hfty ieet
strip crossing Blocks sia,!d a5 was for right
the Rock lstaild att1 Lake Sloru Roads,
tlIe,t their answer denying the necessity of
tile appropriation and tho power Of Tie pc
tit1oller to make L, and nlsG filed q cross-pe-
fur property injured but not taken under
such condemnation. Thu verdict Ut tho Jury
found the compensation for the property
t1ktu 10 Q4 3lb,QVus Nllu uAl]ARGS fuf
property Injured bur not taken to bu Sl3, sou.
| Ul this verdict Judgment was taken and the
defendants appealed.
tons uamhn t., the r,,iinvs ~ tha t,ouIi huInw
s,,mnimim"l ~ ~ arr.,nh.,,,a ,".ra tt,u n,,,,,r
Gus t. notice II in ID detai, end Tie Court tere-
lole ploceedea tu cofsiaGt tneHt seHefaHy.
nn4 Express its views Dt the theory on which
tho petitioner {the Western Indiana Kali
road) proposed to iay its track
. Was D3ahaeo ~. eaSf ny eiarK R1,sa s1feet7
snush },r 1T r,asot,, sirsat Tie Ill, tro. n,,s
S0aM ae ~ nSM ta;;,,, ~ sstGe e Ftp x P
1selith 70 Cl@tk streets, cfoaSinR the 81
Charles All Line EailrpMd and The tracks Of
"a En91e w @ @ s,e,r s, frn'rht sinet enets so mi
wH5xI'Si'sss @ wsTs noTt' q ths blocks nans{,
WILLIE Meatay @ ~. uae!9 Mnes sxten4sM sou.L,
IT,. n,s @ "est ai9' 'a sa oioeks ma ~
| constructed elsewhere und they used several
Y tracks on said blocks for transfer pur-
traeks jnteTceps ' tns isS s. carss % Koad: III the
inaii, chnnnrl nf trnnsfer lar Mi rna,,fe II,
ysisasS sf ai'S shs = cay e sae %ya'sSs asS = q =
nss Vii 9sSs TIC chIeaso sS esss. Msel and nd
their pfoxinity ITO to tiis st. C1ares Roaa. 1v werc re-
q nG pesa yaus Tor ana
t @ ~ Ediest " t a'tM uustu s
strip proposed 10 bu taken would b. TO great
,!rcrs q proof q this a. vert, made md rejected
to sIeetsts the ob!ects ot IT, creation eSnst.
Feeoyer On On thg aStton for damnxes & to g Or iutsr.
ltssncg Wltn suGn teMneniae, anu tnat tae sgftlct
aasss e .ns spkat value he nd TS
E9HEt ugioN Fe1uscu ~ inslFuct tae jury 20 coil
slider evidence ~ ~ n to tns sixht ct way md rnil-
Court oelvw tuo confined n tts scope nI!d @ orro-
il; see: il I'D At: r.. ssc: i: The cuurt aiso
Fsterteo 10 Hs own neeison ~ tne case OF !he
he2a hatPoaa I nos xs
S ~ ss M Ss Hxs Gasa oasf es
Jones va. the ChicaKo q Iowa Na'!soHd Com.
nany, n re1asa to aanaGos To- thS isn'aowner
aclunl dama9s md lnconvenenes aotually pro-
GneGa, p9t ~ ~ .na! mo.ans enona oe aowea tor
sae KehsbasF Ra1oaa coS
Pany. ": iionry. NIB iIlaos, q $s. tno
% Gonrs neta thas tho 1nry m5st consldes
2 fMfm into two [ portions by 9 rAilroaa running
tnInuxn IT, 1he Euust angtea ~. hso ~ FIX " tao
Company. 9th ILL.,. . ut. And on these dccis.
ions sne eupSsne Lonst natQ M faak Ehefd was er'
fGr T,lt1 10 IN .nh raIinx oI tne EGnrt ue!nw.
-
OF the lahd VesIeu N the defeadanta was prop-
nss w. yesssa u the and bad the
tbstructea It, Tint would have bean trcspass. at
The cntrance Of tho petitioner by, viEtuu Of
nrnorty III oaii for 1,,at u IT, IT,
record showed tGat ali EVIDENCE as 10 damage
@ eaused tcyona the boundaries ot 1looks and
seId that + Mns comnStent To si1n,y m,naro ,o.
crulng 10 any part of the right OF why Of raI-
ROAD pFoperty Us , IN entirety. u; mnes a. IN tho
access betWeco tas djtfetcut I uottions. e''' WIN
! Tho supreme Court furthor held that the
Halan g. ho9s the lena saoa!u have oson computed
road transfees, q On tn,s p,}nt thew nuotesi u.
4 W. Il. 4. cn. vs. Van Horn, 18Th Ill.,, 2as. md
aG osnn on'oh StIsv 1I yGtso nan Ss y bscxet ss Iao
! Tic !l1nitation ot tho recovery Of damaucs to
tho actual Injury inflicted, was therefore TOO
r., amo am sno a s y9 as3ea ny
The Court held further that ti,a rejected testt.
mony was material. aud should have bean ad.
| lHtkeAs AA0 neGe@sle1 III tue ApI!EupFlAl4Qt} NM