Case Name: William Truesdale et al. v. The Peoria Grape Sugar Company
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1881-09-26
Citations: 101 Ill. 561
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Truesdale et al. v. The Peoria Grape Sugar Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 561–568

Head Matter:
William Truesdale et al. v. The Peoria Grape Sugar Company.
Filed at Ottawa September 26, 1881
Rehearing denied March Term, 1882.
1. Remedy—laying railroad traclt in street, by consent of city. A court of equity will not take jurisdiction to restrain the lajung of a railroad side-track by a company in the public street in front of its own properly, to connect with the main track of a railway, under license by the city council, by ordinance, on a bill by private individuals owning property in the vicinity, but not abutting on the part of the street to be used.
2. Any damages that may be sustained by property owners in a city by reason of the construction of a railroad track under the license of the city holding the fee of the street, must be sought in an action at law.
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. D. McCulloch, . Judge, presiding.
Mr. Julius S. Stabr, and Messrs. Cooper & Tennery, for the appellants:
While it is true that a city holds the fee of the streets, it is in trust for the benefit of the public, and the city authorities have no rightful power to alienate them or divert them to other uses. Carter v. City of Chicago, 57 Ill. 287; Stack v. City of East St. Louis, 85 id. 379; Kreigh et al. v. City of Chicago, 86 id. 407; City of Alton v. Transportation Co. 12 id. 60; City of Quincy v. Jones, 76 id. 23; City of Chicago v. Rumsey, 87 id. 35.
The cases sustaining the grant of the privilege to construct a railroad track in a public street, are placed upon the ground that railways are improved highways, and subserve the public good as such, which reason fails here. G. B. and W. R. R. Co. v. Hartley, 67 Ill. 443; Stack v. City of East St. Louis, 85 id. 378.
The public are entitled to the use and enjoyment of the whole highway, and no individual can appropriate a portion of it to his own exclusive use. The King v. Russell, 6 East, 427; People v. City of St. Louis, 5 Gilm. 571; Hart v. Mayor of Albany, 5 Wend. 584.
As to the jurisdiction of courts of equity to prevent a nuisance, or obstruction of a highway, by injunction: People v. City of St. Louis, 5 Gilm. 571; Green v. Oakes, 17 Ill. 249 ; Corning v. Lawrence, 6 Johns. Ch. 439; Hills v. Miller, 3 Paige, 254; Chicago and Vincennes R. R. Co. v. People, 92 Ill. 170.
If by contiguity be meant actual contact, then- the property of complainants can not be said to be contiguous; but this term, we conceive, is to be taken in a wider sense, so as to embrace property specially damaged by the obstruction. Green v. Oakes, 17 Ill. 250; Craig v. People, 47 id. 487; Carter v. Chicago, 57 id. 281; Corning v. Lawrence, 6 Johns. Ch. 254; High on Injunctions, sec. 528.
Messrs. Puterbaugh & Puterbaugh, for the appellee:
As to the power of a city to authorize the laying of a railroad track in and along its public streets, counsel cited Moses v. Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne and Chicago R. R. Co. 21 Ill. 516; Murphy v. City of Chicago, 29 id. 279; Stetson v. Chicago and Evanston R. R. Co. 75 id. 74; Patterson v. Chicago, Danville and Vincennes R. R. Co. 75 id. 588; City of Quincy v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. R. Co. 92 id. 23.
The laying of a railroad track upon a street will not be enjoined at the suit of an adjacent land owner, who simply owns up to the line of the street, and over whose land the road does not pass, where no special damage is shown to the complainant different from that to all the other property owners. High on Injunctions, secs. 522, 533; Bigelow v. Hartford, etc. 14 Conn. 565; O’Brien v. Norwich, etc. 17 id. 372; Frink v. Lawrence, 20 id. 117, and cases cited supra.
The rule requiring complainants to show a special injury peculiar to themselves, distinct .from the general inconvenience experienced by the public, is inflexible. Corning v. Lawrence, 6 Johns. Ch. 439; McCowan v. Whitesides, 31 Ind. 235; Davis v. Mayor, 4 Kern. 506; Dawson v. St. Paul, etc. 15 Minn. 136; High on Injunctions, sec. 528.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Scott
delivered the opinion of the Court:
In view of the previous decisions of this court it will not be necessary to enter upon any elaborate discussion of the questions raised on this bill. Private individuals, owning property and carrying on business in the vicinity, seek to enjoin defendants from laying a side-track in the street in front of their own property, to connect with any railroad previously constructed in the street. It is alleged in the bill an ordinance was about to be passed by the city council of Peoria that would authorize defendants to do the acts the. injunction was intended to prevent. Conceding, as the bill does, the ordinance of the city will warrant the action of defendants in constructing a railroad track in the street, it must be considered as definitely settled by the previous decisions of this court that equity will not entertain jurisdiction to restrain the contemplated act. It is not alleged any portion of complainants' lands will be taken or touched by the proposed railroad track, nor are complainants abutting land owners. Their property is in the vicinity, on the same street, but not adjacent to the proposed improvement. The railroad track is to be constructed on the street, the fee of which, it is conceded, is in the corporation granting the privi lege to lay such track. When this hill was filed, the sidetrack was not then constructed. It was to be built under, and in Conformity with, an ordinance of the city council. No direct injury would be done to complainants' lands, and at .the utmost only consequential damages would be sustained. The nature and extent of such damages could only be ascertained after the completion of the work. It may be, if the ordinance granting the license shall be observed in the construction of the side-track, no serious detriment will result to complainants or others from its construction. But be that .as it may, the track is to be constructed on lands not owned by complainants, and under a license from the only party having lawful authority to grant the privilege, and any expected damages that may be sustained by reason of the proposed work, can only be recovered in an action at law. Equity will not entertain jurisdiction to enjoin the proposed work. The rule of law on this subject is so well settled by previous decisions of this court, it is not deemed necessary to discuss it again as a new question. The following cases contain a full expression of the views of the court on the questions discussed by counsel in this ease: Stetson v. Chicago and Evanston R. R. Co. 75 Ill. 74; Pattersons. Chicago, Danville and Vincennes R. R. Co. 75 id. 588; Peoria and Rock Island Ry. Co. v. Schertz, 84 id. 135; Cairo and Vincennes R. R. Co. v. The People, 92 id. 170.
The judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.