McDonald v. English

Citations

• 85 Ill. 232

Syllabus

<p>1. Error. The admission of irrelevant evidence which works no injury, but is in favor of the party objecting, affords no ground for reversing a judgment against him.</p> <p>2. Nuisance —obstruction in sidewalk or streets. Many things may be authorized by legislative or proper municipal authority, which, without such authority, would be nuisances, but being so authorized, so far as regards the public, they are lawful, though they may, to a greater or less extent, interfere with the free and entire use of the street.</p> <p>3. Same—municipal corporation can not authorize what is a legal injury to others. Although it is true that a municipal corporation can not authorize that which is deemed a legal injury to the property of an individual, without making compensation, yet the individual can not recover for every technical nuisance to the streets of a city, without regard to whether he has sustained special injury.</p> <p>4. Action—-for obstruction in street. The rule is well settled that, for any obstruction to streets not resulting in special injury to the individual, the public, only, can complain. Where the obstruction is a public offense, and special injury thereby results to a person, the latter may maintain an action against the wrongdoer. In such case, the special injury is the gist of the action.</p>