Conwell v. Springfield & Northwestern Railroad

Citations

• 81 Ill. 232

Syllabus

<p>1. Right of wat—effect of release on claim for damages. Where a party-executes a contract with a railway company, agreeing to release and convey a right of way for its road over any lands owned by him, as soon as the road is located, he will not be entitled to any damages by the construction of the road over any of his lands.</p> <p>2. Parol evidence—to explain written contract. Where parties reduce their contract to writing, the law presumes that the whole terms and conditions of the agreement are fully incorporated in and become a ‘part of the written contract, and parol evidence is inadmissible to explain or vary its legal effect.</p> <p>3. Where a party agrees to release the right of way for a railroad over any of his lands in a county, parol evidence can not be received to show that it was expected the road would he located by a different route over other lands of the parly.</p> <p>4. Release—of right of way. Where a party executes a release of right of way over any of his lands for a railroad, he can not avoid the same as to a particular tract, on the ground he had at the time given a bond for a deed to such tract where there is no proof made of the payment of any of the purchase money. And if any payment had been made, that fact would not show he had no interest to release.</p>