Skip to main content
· 1/18/1882

Bowman v. Venice & Carondelet Railway Co.

Citations

  • 102 Ill. 459
  • 1882 Ill. LEXIS 55

Syllabus

<p>1. Instruction—whether it excludes admissions of counsel or parties. An instruction to the jury in a proceeding to condemn land for right of way, in which a cross-petition was filed claiming damages to other lands, where, on the trial, it was admitted that the cross-petitioner had title to a portion .of the land, and also that his grantors had good title to another portion of the land in question, that “statements of counsel or parties not made under oath, or made as admissions, are not evidence, and are not to be regarded as such by the jury in making up their verdict,” is not liable to the objection that it excludes such admissions from the consideration of the jury.</p> <p>2. Eminent domain—condemnation of right of way'.for railroad—in case of several owners of the same land—of proceeding against all or a part. In a proceeding to condemn land under the Eminent Domain act, where the land to be affected by it belongs to two or more as tenants in common, it is not essential to the jurisdiction of the court that all the owners shall be brought into court, but the court has power to hear and determine the case as to those before it.</p> <p>3. If the rights of one, in any sense, should depend upon the disposition of the case as to the others, then each party in interest would have the right to insist on all the parties being before the court before proceeding to a trial.</p> <p>4. Where several tracts of land belonging to different persons are included in the same petition, the statute provides that the compensation for each shall be assessed separately, by the same or different juries, as the court or judge may direct, and the same principle may be extended to cases where different persons have several and distinct interests in the same tract.</p> <p>5. Same—of the petition—sufficiency as to inability to agree with owner. An averment in a petition for the condemnation of land for right of way, “that the petitioner has been unable to acquire the right of way from sa

Judges: Mulkey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.