Gambar halaman




Rights and remedies of-Damage.

Any property owner whose rights or property interests are involved, may present objections that a corporation granted privileges by ordinance, is not constructing its railroad in accordance with the ordinance.

Peabody Coal Co. v. N. W. Elev. Ry. Co., 230 11l. 214. Abutting owners may sue after a railroad has been built in the public street, for damage to their property, where such property is not taken.

Aldis v. Union Elev. Ry. Co., 203 Ill. 567. An elevated Railway Company, acting under license from a city, is liable for damage to abutting owners, caused by construction of its structure in a public street.

Aldis v. Union Elev. Ry. Co., 203 Ill. 567. Street Railway Companies are not abutting owners as regards their right of way.

City of Chicago v. C. U. T. Co., 199 I11. 259. Noise, smoke and dirt from passing trains is an element of damages to abutting owner-railroad built in street.

Calumet, etc., Dock Co. v. Morawetz, 195 III. 398. When owner may recover damages because of the construction of an elevated road-what is a damage to property under

the constitution prohibiting the taking of private property without just compensation—when corpus is not taken.

Aldrich v. Met. W. S. El. Ry. Co., 195 Ill. 456. Abutting owners have no easement as to light and air, in a public street so as to recover damages in cases of track elevation-when.

Kotz v. I. C. R. R. Co., 188 Ill. 578. Damages arising from track elevation give no recovery to an adjoining owner who deeded a right of way for all purposes of complete operation of such railroad.

Kotz v. I. C. R. R. Co., 188 Ill. 578. Abutting owners have an action at law for damages caused by construction of an elevated railway in public street.

Doane v. Lake St. “L” R. R. Co., 165 Ill. 510 (524). Abutting owners may not bring trespass for damages against railroad company laying track in street, where the street has been dedicated to the city-and the railroad built before plaintiff acquired the property-discussion.

Galt v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 157 Ill. 125.

Ownership of Street by.

When the fee to a street is not in the City by dedication.

Wilder v. Aurora, etc., Trac. Co., 216 Ill. 493. Abutting owners have no interests in street where city owns the fee—exceptions.

McWethy v. Aurora Elec. Light Co., 202 Ill. 218. Statutory dedication of street by plat-rights of abutting owners to fee in street to center.

Thompson v. Maloney, 199 Ill. 276. Abutting owners own the land used for a public street subject to the right of travel only when the fee is not in the City.

Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 Ill. 513. County boards must consent to the use of highways by

telegraph company-but such consent gives no rights until abutting owners consent or condemnation is had.

Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 Ill. 513.

Estoppel of.

When abutting owner is not guilty of laches in applying for an injunction against an additional servitude.

R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 204 Ill. 488. When abutting owner is not estopped to enjoin railroad from laying additional track in street.

Pennsylvania Co. v. Bond, 202 Ill. 95. That abutting owners have allowed one railroad in a street without objection does not estop them from enjoining a second railroad.

Davenport Bridge Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 188 I11. 472. When abutting owners are not estopped from bringing ejectment to remove railroad tracks.

City of Chester v. W. C. & W. R. R. Co., 182 Ill. 382. By signing petition to vacate street owner abandons his rights in the street.

Goodwillie Co. v. Commonwealth Co., 241 Ill. 42.

May enjoin additional servitude.

Abutting owners may enjoin an additional servitude upon the street, where condemnation has not been had.

Davenport Bridge Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 188 Ill. 472. Abutting owners cannot enjoin the illegal construction of a street railway for the reason that they have a remedy at law for damages.

Gen'l Elec. Ry. Co. v. C. & W. I. Ry. Co., 184 Ill. 588 (594). Telegraph lines and wires are an additional servitude and cannot be put in without the consent of abutting owners, except by condemnation.

Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 I11. 513.

Abutting owners cannot enjoin the use of a street by a street railway company operating under a grant from the City-not an additional servitude.

Stewart v. Chicago Gen'l Et. Ry. Co., 166 Ill. 61.

Doane v. Lake St. "L" R. R. Co., 165 111. 510. Abutting owners may not enjoin building of an elevated railway-or other rightful use of street, not an additional servitude.

Doane v. Lake St. "L" R. R. Co., 165 Ill. 510 (519). Laying additional track of steam railroad in street is an additional servitude, requiring consent of abutting owners, or condemnation.

R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 204 Ill. 488. Additional servitude—what is not-street railway tracks laid with consent of municipality.

C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. W. C. St. Ry. Co., 156 I11. 255 (266).

P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. W. C. St. Ry. Co., 156 Ill. 385. Abutting owners must look to the railroad company for damages to their property from tracks in the street, where the City owns the fee. No action against City.

City of Olney v. Wharf, 115 111. 519. Cities have no power to grant a railway company the privilege of carrying freight over tracks in City streets where the company has a grant to carry passengers only, except on petition of property owners.

McCartney v. C. & E. R. R. Co., 112 Ill. 611. Consent of abutting owners to railroad track in street not required in 1883, or under Act of 1874 as to railroads. cities organized under the City and Village Act such consent is required.

Wiggins Ferry Co. v. E. St. L. U. Ry. Co., 107 111. 450. Consent of abutting owners is not required where railroad track merely crosses a street.

C. & W. I. R. R. Co. v. Dunbar, 100 Ill. 110.


IN GENERAL In general

Money paid out by a corporation as a loan, where the corporation has no power to loan money, may be recovered back by suit for money had and received.

Leigh v. American Beam Co., 205 Ill. 147. In action for rent of real estate owned by a corporation, the lessee cannot set up as a defense that the corporation had no authority to erect the building and rent it.

Rector v. Hartford Deposit Co., 190 Ill. 380. Replevin of corporate property lies where it has been pledged by an officer for his individual debt.

Wheeler, Assignee, v. Home S. & S. Bank, 188 111. 34. In an action for damages due to a collision between street cars, the suing company cannot set up as a cause of action the fact that the defendant company was using cable, when its charter authorized "animal power only.”

Chicago Gen'l Ry. Co. v. C. C. Ry. Co., 186 Ill. 219. Creditor's bill to reach funds wrongfully paid over to stockholders. Recovery had.

Singer v. Hutchinson, 183 111. 606 (613). A party contributing capital or property to a reorganizing corporation, on agreement that he will be reimbursed by bonds to be delivered to him, may sue for such reimbursement.

Crown Coal & T. Co. v. Thomas, 177 Ill. 534.
Actions for damage by fire set by engine.

Amer. Starboard Co. v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 177 Ill. 513.
C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Glenny, 175 Ill. 238.
B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Tripp, 175 I11. 251.
First Nat. Bank v. L. E. & W. Ry. Co., 174 III. 36.
C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Esten, 178 I11. 192.
C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Stephens, 173 Ill. 430.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »