Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

LeaseholdStatus of.

Condemnation of leasehold interest-unpaid rent-proced

ure.

Rubel v. Title G. & T. Co., 199 Ill. 110.
Action to condemn leasehold interests in premises.

West Side “L” Co. v. Siegel, 161 Ill. 638.
P. B. & C. Trac. Co. v. Vance, 234 111. 36.
C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 233 Ill. 508.

West Park Commissioners v. Boal, 232 Ill. 248. Leaseholder may have compensation for his damage through condemnation; but must prove loss.

Hodgerson v. St. L. C. & St. P. R. R. Co., 160 III. 430 (432).

Mortgager and Mortgagee-Status of.

Condemnation of a portion of mortgaged premises removes the lien from the portion of land taken.

Stopp v. Wilt, 177 III. 620. Mortgagee is not entitled to have money secured for damages in condemnation, applied on his debt, where the money is required to restore improvements destroyed.

Stopp v. Wilt, 177 III. 620. Mortgagee holding a mortgage on condemned property has a first lien upon the money paid for taking the property, as against subsequent judgment creditor. Bill to compel application of fund to pay mortgage.

Keller v. Bading, 169 III. 152.

Petition in Sufficiency.

Failure of a petition for condemnation to allege that the railroad line has been located over defendant's land is not jurisdictional, and amendment will be allowed.

Martin v. C. & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 220 Ill. 97. Separate parcels of land, though owned by different persons, may be included in the same petition for condemnation.

Martin v. C. & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 220 Ill. 97.

Petition for condemnation must allege that the petitioner cannot agree upon the price to be allowed for land.

Met. “L” Ry. Co. v. Eschner, 232 III. 210.

Eddleman v. Union County T. & P. Co., 217 Ill. 409 (415). Condemnation petition should allege inability to agree with owners, if owners are accessible—not otherwise—waiver.

West Skokie Dist. v. Dawson, 243 111. 175.
Davis v. Northwestern El. Ry. Co., 170 III. 595.

C. & A. R. R. Co. v. City of Pontiac, 169 Ill. 155.
Inability to agree with owners as to compensation or inca-
pacity or non-residence must be alleged in proceeding under
Eminent Domain Act, but not under Art. 9 of City and Village
Act to open a street.

L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 151 III. 359.

L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 148 Ill. 509. Averments of the petitioner in condemnation, of title in the defendant, admit title, and waives proof by defendant.

Sanitary District v. P. Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co., 216 Ill. 575. Delivery of a condemnation petition to the proper court clerk is equivalent to filing it; where clerk neglected to file it: even fee is not tendered,, if not demanded.

Dowie v. C. W. & N. S. R. R. Co., 214 Ill. 49 (53). Petition of telegraph company to condemn right of way for poles and wires along railroad right of way, held sufficientprocedure—incident controversies.

St. L. & C. R. R. Co. v. Postal Tel. Co., 173 Ill. 508. When condemnation petition is sufficient as to description of property.

C. & A. R. R. Co. v. City of Pontiac, 169 111. 155. “Lands, right of way and tracks” include in their meaning "railroad yards," in condemnation petition.

C. & A. R. R. Co. v. City of Pontiac, 169 Ill. 155. Plat filed with petition in condemnation is part of the description of the land.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. Village of Lostant, 167 III. 85.

Petition in—when sufficiently stating contending claims of title to premises.

Met, “L” Ry. Co. v. Eschner, 232 Ill. 210.

Thomas v. St. L. B. & S. Ry. Co., 164 Ill. 634 (637). Description of "right of way" held not good; but not erroneous.

C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Moline, 158 Ill. 64 (72). Authority of petitioner to condemn must be averred in the petition-reference to statute granting power sufficient.

L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. B. & O. & C. R. R. Co., 149 Ill. 274.

Pleadings in general.

Appearance by defendant in condemnation is not withdrawn where he afterward enters special appearance and pleads want of jurisdiction.

Martin v. C. & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 220 Ill. 97. Cross petition in condemnation by owner of land not taken

-held proper.

I. I. & I. Ry. Co. v. Conness, 184 Ill. 178. Cross petition asking for assessment of damages does not waive a motion to dismiss petition for want of power to condemn.

Harvey v. Aurora & G. Ry. Co., 174 Ill. 295. Cross petition lies in condemnation for damage to adjoinin or adjacent premises.

West Side “L” Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 434 (438).
County of Mercer v. Wolff, 237 Ill. 74.

Practice as to.

The owners of the fee and the leasehold are jointly allowed three challenges in condemnation proceedings. They constitute, together, one party.

Freiberg v. South Side El. Ry. Co., 221 Ill. 508. Separate trial in condemnation is discretionary with the court and will not be reviewed unless clearly abused. No abuse shown.

City of Evanston v. Knox, 241 III. 460.
Eddleman v. Union County T. & P. Co., 217 Ill. 409.
Braun v. Met. West Side “L” Co., 166 Ill. 434.

Where the title to property being condemned for railway purposes is in litigation, the money paid for it should be paid to the County Treasurer, to be held pending a decision as to the title.

Eddleman v. Union County T. & P. Co., 217 III. 409 (417). The method of condemnation may be changed by the Legislature, subsequent to the organization of a railroad company, and the company must conform to the changed method.

C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Abbott, 215 I11. 416. Defendants in condemnation are not required to prove ownership.

C. & M. E. Ry. Co. v. Diver, 213 Ill. 26. Peremptory challenges in condemnation. One tract, though owned by several persons, is entitled to but three.

I. I. & M. Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 210 III. 270. What is not proper cross-examination of a witness as to values in condemnation.

I. I. & M. Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 210 Ill. 270. Stipulation as to method of constructing railroad-force of, in condemnation.

T. M. & N. Ry. Co. v. Haws, 194 Ill. 92. Amendment of 1897 (Sec. 10 Eminent Domain) is retroactive and applies to all pending cases. Payment of defendant's costs by an unsuccessful petitioner.

C. & W. I. R. R. Co. v. Guthrie, 192 Ill. 579.

Sanitary Dist. v. Bernstein, 175 Ill. 215. Costs in condemnation go against the petitioner when judgment for damages is allowed.

Epling v. Dickson, 170 Ill. 329.

Conduct of attorney–handing jury a paper showing estimate of damages claimed, is bad.

Met. West Side "L" Co. v. White, 166 I11. 375. Questions of title are adjusted by the court.

C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 233 Ill. 508.

Met. "L" Ry. Co. v. Eschner, 232 Ill. 210. When dismissal of proceedings allowed.

City of Evanston v. Knox, 241 III. 460. Rule as to granting new trial.

West Chicago Park Commissioners v. Boal, 232 Ill. 248. What is not a fair trial.

South Park Commissioners v. Ayer, 237 Ill. 211 New venire—how secured

County of Mercer v. Wolff, 237 Ill. 74. Distribution of condemnation funds.

Met. “L” Ry. Co. v. Eschner, 232 I11. 210.

Damages—How determined-Jury.

Compensation in condemnation must be found by the regular jury panel. Sec. 6, Eminent Domain, refers only to proceedings in vacation.

Davis. v. Northwestern El. Ry. Co., 170 I11. 595.

Compensation in general.

The interest taken affects amount of damage.

Drainage Commissioners v. Knox, 237 III. 148. Damages due to prior condemnation, but not claimed, cannot be set up in subsequent condemnation proceeding.

Guyer v. D. R. I. & N. W. Ry. Co., 196 Ill. 370. Compensation must be paid for property taken, in all cases where an action would not lie at common law, but for the eminent domain statute-rule of.

Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. v. Payne, 192 Ill. 239.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »