People ex rel. Decatur & State Line Railway Co. v. McRoberts

Citations

• 62 Ill. 38

Syllabus

<p>1. Eminent Domain. The 13th section of the Bill of Bights of the constitution of 1870, placing restrictions upon the exercise of the right of eminent domain, is not merely prospective in its effect, but operated in presentí, without legislative action.</p> <p>2. Same—mode of fixing compensation. It provides that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation; and that such compensation, when not made by the State, shall be ascertained by a jury, as shall be prescribed by law. The requirement that the compensation shall be ascertained by a jury is affirmative in its character, and must imply an exclusion of any other mode of fixing the compensation. If there was no law under which a jury could be impaneled for the ascertainment of such compensation, and the legislature neglected to provide one, the constitution would not, for that reason, be in abeyance; but until such law was provided, the right of eminent domain could not be exercised.</p> <p>3. The compensation for property damaged, as well as taken, must be ascertained by a jury. It can be neither damaged nor taken without compensation ; and there can be no entrance upon or possession of land for public use until the compensation for the land damaged, as well as taken, has been paid.</p> <p>4. Same— act of June 22,1852. The first six sections of the Act of June 22, 1852, which provides for the filing of a petition, due notice to the persons interested, the appointment of commissioners, their inspection of the premises, and a report of the compensation assessed by them to be filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court, are in no sense in conflict with the constitution of 1870.</p> <p>5. But the 7th. section, which makes the decision of the commissioners conclusive upon the parties before they can have the benefit of a trial by jury, is inconsistent with the letter of the constitution. The assessment and report of the commissioners should conclude no owner of the land, and