Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Blume

Citations

• 137 Ill. 448
• 27 N.E. 601
• 1891 Ill. LEXIS 1054

Syllabus

<p>1. Eminent domain—measure of damages to land, not taken. In a proceeding to condemn land for a railroad right of way, some of defendant’s witnesses referred to “danger to stock,” etc., in giving their reasons for placing the damages to the land not taken at certain figures, ilhe court instructed the jury that they were not authorized to allow anything for supposed damage to stock from the use of the right of way for railway purposes, and “that the damages contemplated to be paid for injury to contiguous land not taken, are such, and only such, as are the direct results of the taking of the right of way; that such damages, to be legitimately allowed, must be direct and proximate, •and not remote and possible, onlyHeld, that in view of the instructions thus given, the petitioner could not have been injured by the testimony complained of.</p> <p>2. On the trial of a condemnation proceeding, the court, on behalf of the defendant, instructed the jury, “that the law is, that when a railroad condemns land for right of way, the jury, in assessing damages to the owner, may take into consideration not only the value of the land taken, but all the facts which contribute to produce the damages to that not taken, as, that the farm is put in a worse shape for cultivation or pasturage; that some portion of it is more dangerous for use; that there is danger of fire from passing engines, and all other actual inconvenience and damages the property may sustain in its use, 'not only for the present, but the future Held, that the instruction was not erroneous.</p> <p>3. Practice-—improper answer to unobjectionable question—motion to exclude. Where an improper answer is made by a witness to a proper and unobjectionable question, the party claiming to be injured by the objectionable evidence should move to exclude it, or ask an instruction directing the jury to disregard it. If he fails to do either he can not complain.</p> <p>4. Practice in the Supreme Court—error will not always reve