Henry v. Centralia & Chester Railroad

Citations

• 121 Ill. 264
• 12 N.E. 744

Syllabus

<p>1. Eminent domain—of the pleadings—and trial of issues of fact. There being no rule of law or practice authorizing the filing of any kind of' answer or plea to a petition for the condemnation of land, there is no error - in compelling the land owner to proceed with the trial without disposing of a • plea of nul tiel corporation filed.</p> <p>2. Same—corporate existence of petitioner—and of evidence to the jury on that subject. In a proceeding under the statute, to assess the land owner’s • compensation for land taken for a right of way and damages to lands not taken, it is not necessary to show that the capital stock of the railway company, plaintiff, has all been subscribed,—or, in other words, to show it is a, corporation de jure. It is sufficient in this proceeding to show a corporation de facto.</p> <p>3. Evidence showing the petitioner is a de facto corporation, should not go to the jury called to estimate the compensation and damages; but if it is-sufficient to satisfy the court of the petitioner’s right to proceed, the error ■ in suffering it to go to the jury is so small and harmless as not to require a reversal.</p> <p>4. Pbactice—remarks of counsel to jury. Where the language of coun- ' sel tends to excite passion and prejudice to a degree that will probably cloud the judgment, and therefore improperly affect the verdict, the court should. prompt!)' check and rebuke him; and for a failure in this respect, a verdict in favor of the party whose counsel thus abuses his position should be set aside. But it must not be assumed that every mis-statement of law or fact will have the effect of exciting improper prejudice in the jury.</p>