Rockford, Rock Island & St. Louis R. R. v. Coppinger

Citations

• 66 Ill. 510

Syllabus

<p>1. Depositions—improperly entitled. In a proceeding hy a railroad company to condemn a strip of the defendant’s land for a right of way, a motion was made to suppress the defendant’s depositions for the reason that they were entitled with the names of the parties reversed. It appeared that they related to the matter of the suit, and were taken between the parties to it, and that the party objecting appeared and cross-examined the witnesses: Held, that although, technically, they were not properly entitled, the motion was properly overruled.</p> <p>2. Right on wat—right to home jury view the land. Where a company, seeking to condemn land for right of way, procured the venue of the cause to be changed to another county: Held, that, by taking the change of venue from the only court upon whom the power was conferred under the act of 1872, to order a personal view by the jury, the company debarred itself of that right, and could not be heard to complain of the loss of it.</p> <p>3. Same—form of judgment. Where the petitioner has not already entered upon the land sought to be condemned, the judgment of the court, upon the assessment of damages, should order that the petitioner enter upon and use the property condemned upon payment of the compensation found by the jury. But where the petitioner had given the requisite bond, and had entered, such an order was unnecessary.</p> <p>4. Evidence—opinion of witnesses. Where witnesses were allowed, without objection, to give their opinions as to the extent of the defendant’s damage, in a proceeding to acquire the right of way through his land, as well as to testify to facts: Held, that the jury had the right to consider such evidence.</p>