Skip to main content
· 11/17/1884

Culbertson & Blair Packing & Provision Co. v. City of Chicago

Citations

  • 111 Ill. 651
  • 1884 Ill. LEXIS 1234

Syllabus

<p>. 1. Evidence — proof as to value of lot of ground — of the mode — in suit to recover for damage to the lot. In a suit to recover damages claimed to have resulted to a city lot from the erection of a viaduct in a street adjacent thereto, on the question of the value of the lot, it having no market value, the price at which similar property had been sold shortly before, in the same vicinity, may be shown by witnesses.</p> <p>2. Same — proof of value of lot by inspection of the jury. In assessing the damages a lot is claimed to have sustained in consequence of the constraction of a viaduct in a street adjacent thereto, where the jury, by consent of parties, view the premises themselves, they may act upon the knowledge thus acquired by inspection.</p> <p>3. Actions — damage to adjacent property owners from public improvement in a street — liability therefor, upon whom it rests. The mere contributing of material aid by a private individual to a city, to enable the latter to execute a public work not unlawful in itself, is not necessarily attended with liability on the part of him who extends such aid, for injury that may thereby result to private rights.</p> <p>4. So where a railway company entered into a contract with a city, by which the former agreed to pay a given sum on the cost of a viaduct proposed to be constructed in a street, there being no illegal motive in tendering such aid to the city, it was held, that the railway company could not be held jointly liable with the city in tort for a private injury to adjoining property caused by the viaduct. _</p> <p>5. A city, alone, has authority to construct a viaduct in a street, and when one is so constructed by the city, even when done under the joint superintendence of a public official of the city and a chief engineer of a railroad company, and the company paid a part of the price of the improvement, it was held, that the viaduct was still public property, belonging to the city alone. The aid furnished by the ra

Judges: Schoheteld

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.