Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Darke

Citations

• 148 Ill. 226
• 35 N.E. 750
• 1893 Ill. LEXIS 1013

Syllabus

<p>1. Railways—liability for injury to private property used for a residence. It can not be doubted that, at common law, mere noise in the immediate vicinity of the premises, and especially of the dwelling house of the land owner, may be of such a character as to constitute an actionable nuisance, remediable by an action on the case for damages, or by injunction.</p> <p>2. If the noise, confusion and disturbance caused by the engines and cars of a railway company to private property in the vicinity are such as would, in the absence of legislative authority, have constituted an actionable nuisance, the existence of such authority in no way relieves them of their damaging effect, so as to take away from the property owners their right to redress, or so as to convert what was before actionable, into a case of damnum absque injuria.</p> <p>3. In an action against a railroad company for damages to the plaintiffs premises used for a residence, caused by the construction and operation of its road in the near vicinity of his property, the court refused an instruction asked by the defendant, to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover for any damages to his property alleged to have been caused by reason of any noise, confusion or disturbance occasioned by the operation of the defendant’s trains in the yards of upon the tracks of the defendant, or for unsightly structures on the defendant’s premises in front of the plaintiff’s property: Held, that the instruction was properly refused.</p> <p>4. Joint liability—of two defendants—when presented to this court. Where the question of the joint liability of two railway companies is not raised in the trial court by exception to the ruling of the court in relation to the exclusion or admission of evidence, by an instruction to the jury, either given or asked, or by any points made in the defendants’ motion for a new trial, it can not be considered by this court.</p> <p>5. Eminent domain—compensation for damage to private prope