A railroad seeking to condemn land may agree to do certain things that will lessen the damage to the owner; provided such agreement does not render the right of way unsafe to the public. E. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Sims, 228 III. 9. The right of eminent domain is exhausted by a railroad company when it has acquired the right of way named in its charter. Such right cannot be exercised to establish a new right of way not named in the charter without further authority from the Legislature, although said new right of way would be a public benefit. C. V. & C. Ry. Co. v. Woodyard, 226 Ill. 331. The fact that condemnation of a right of way for a railroad would be a public benefit is not sufficient basis for such proceedings. They must be based on authority conferred by the charter of the corporation. C. V. & C. Ry. Co. v. Woodyard, 226 Ill. 331. Condemnation of railroad right of way gives the company an easement only. Sec. 13, Art. 2, of constitution. C. & E. R. R. Co. v. Clapp, 201 Ill. 418. Railroad may condemn way through premises it has lost by foreclosure, or regarding which forcible detainer is pending. Thomas v. St. L. B. & S. Ry. Co., 164 Ill. 634 (638). A railroad company may by condemnation condemn the interests of abutting owners in a public street for track purposes, after having secured the consent of the municipality. The fact that the property is already a highway does not change the situation. Gillette v. Aurora Railways Co., 228 Ill. 261. Railroad companies are not authorized to proceed by condemnation to lay additional tracks across a city street where the ordinance granting the original right of way does not authorize such tracks. The assent of the city must be secured for such additional track. Chicago T. R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 220 I11. 310. Through school lands. Black v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 243 Ill. 534. Par. 90, Sec. 1, Art. 5, City and Village Act, as amended in 1887, requires the consent by petition of more than onehalf the abutting owners to lay down railroad tracks in a city street, or of the part in which tracks are to be laid. McGann v. People, 194 Ill. 526. Condemnation of way for a team track by railroad company to facilitate loading and unloading freight—when a public street. Hodgerson v. St. L. C. & St. P. R. R. Co., 160 Ill. 430. A railroad company condemning 100 feet for right of way may take another 125 feet under Sec. 20, Chap. 114, of the Railroad Act, where such extra land is taken for "borrow" and drainage purposes. Prather v. Chicago S. Ry. Co., 221 Ill. 190. Condemnation of strips on both sides of an original right of way is allowed if the total width of right of way does not exceed 100 feet. C. & M. E. Ry. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 211 Ill. 352. Condemnation of part of the width of a right of way does not estop railroad company from later condemning full width allowed by statute. C. & M. E. Ry. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 211 Ill. 352. One railroad company may not secure by condemnation a part of the right of way of another railroad, longitudinally, but may cross it. C. & M. E. Ry. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 211 Ill. 352. How far one railroad company may condemn for its use the property of another road. Suburban R. R. Co. v. Met. El. R. R. Co., 193 Ill. 217. E. St. L. & C. Ry. Co. v. Belleville Ry. Co., 159 Ill. 544 (547). By Street Railway Company. Where a corporation organized under the Railroad Act secures license from a city to lay tracks along city streets and begins condemnation proceedings against abutting owners, who appear and move to dismiss the proceedings to condemn, held that the proceedings should be dismissed, where it appears that such corporation contemplates a system of street railway. The Railroad Act does not authorize such a system. Gillette v. Aurora Railways Co., 228 Ill. 261. The Street Railway Act (1899) does not authorize condemnation of private land, except where the line necessarily deflects from highway. An honest effort to follow the highway must be shown. Hartshorn v. Ill. Val. T. Co., 210 Ill. 609. Street railways are not authorized to condemn property under the act of 1899, Sec. 1, except upon a showing that such taking is necessary. Dewey v. C. & M. Elec. Co., 185 Ill. 426. Street railway's power of eminent domain was limited by the act of 1874. (Horse and Dummy Railway Act.) (But see act of 1899, Street Railroads.) No such power was given by the act of 1872. Harvey v. Aurora & G. Ry. Co., 174 Ill. 295. By Elevated Railroad. Condemnation of strips of land on either side to widen a subway under elevated railroad tracks so as to accommodate travel through the subway is proper. Summerfield v. City of Chicago, 197 Ill. 270. How damages to land not taken should be determinedelevated railroad. Davis v. Northwestern El. Ry. Co., 170 III. 595. C. & A. R. R. Co. v. City of Pontiac, 169 Ill. 155. - Elevated railroad condemnation by - damages to land taken, and not taken, how determined-witnesses. Met. West Side "L" Co. v. White, 166 Ill. 375. Special benefits to property, defined-elevated railroadhow considered. Met. West Side "L" Co. v. White, 166 Ill. 375. By Receiver. Receiver of a railroad may be authorized by the court to exercise eminent domain to complete the railroad. Morrison v. Forman, 177 Ill. 427. By City-Across railroad tracks. Clause 89, Sec. 1, Art. 5, City and Village Act, authorizes cities to condemn way for a street across railroad tracks. C. T. R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 217 Ill. 343. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. City of Morrison, 195 Ill. 271. Condemnation of street across railroad right of way—use by railroad company after condemnation-power of city— procedure-damages. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Town of Cicero, 154 Ill. 656. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Village of Lostant, 167 Ill. 85. By Telegraph and Telephone Company. Eminent domain may be exercised by telegraph and telephone company. Telegraph and Telephone Act, Sec. 2. Village of London Mills v. White, 208 Ill. 289. People v. Cent. U. Tel. Co., 232 Ill. 260. Ill. Tel. News Co. v. Meine, 242 Ill. 568. St. L. & C. R. R. Co. v. Postal Tel Co., 173 III. 508. By Foreign Corporation. Act of 1899, allowing foreign corporation to exercise eminent domain, construed and limited. Ill. State T. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 208 Ill. 419. Notice to owners. Notice of condemnation proceedings must be given owners. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Abbott, 215 Ill. 416. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hasenwinkle, 232 III. 224. Questions-What may be raised. The question whether an alleged corporation is a de facto corporation may be raised in a condemnation proceeding, but not as to its being a de jure corporation, where it presumes to act by authority of a charter good on its face. Gillette v. Aurora Railways Co., 228 Ill. 261. In condemnation proceedings the question of the forfeiture of a grant, by not beginning the construction of a railroad within the time named by statute and articles of incorporation, cannot be raised. Thomas v. S. S. Elev. R. R. Co., 218 Ill. 571. Petitioner's power to condemn land-question of, is waived where hearing before jury is begun. Sexter v. U. S. Yard Co., 200 I11. 244. Existence and legality of a corporation seeking to condemn land cannot be raised in such condemnation proceedings. This must be done by quo warranto. Eddleman v. Union County T. & P. Co., 217 Ill. 409. Parties Who should be. Parties-city not a necessary party in condemnation of private lands for a right of way, though streets and alleys are crossed. Dowie v. C. W. & N. S. Ry. Co., 214 Ill. 49 (51). In condemnation all land owners need not be in court to give jurisdiction-procedure-separate hearing. I. I. & I. Ry. Co. v. Conness, 184 Ill. 178. Party holding "vendor's lien" on property is not necessary party in condemnation. Thomas v. St. L. B. & S. Ry. Co., 164 Ill. (636). |