Skip to main content
· 9/15/1872

Rockford, Rock Island & St. Louis Railroad v. Shunick

Citations

  • 65 Ill. 223

Syllabus

<p>1. Estoppel m pais. On an application to condemn the lands of a party for the uses of a railroad, the land owner claimed compensation and damages on account of land taken and damaged; to defeat this claim the railroad company offered in evidence an agreement purporting to be executed by fifty-seven persons, including the present claimant, securing to the company the right of way through the township in which the land was situate free of charge and expense. This agreement was not made directly to the company, but for its use and benefit, and contained a clause that it should not be delivered to the company until one hundred subscribers were secured thereto. This, it was insisted, estopped the land owner from claiming compensation and damages: Held, that in the absence of proof that the company accepted the terms proffered in the agreement, or was in any manner influenced to alter its condition or govern its action thereby, such agreement could not operate as an estoppel in pais.</p> <p>2. Same—proof of condition upon which, assv/rance was given. And where such agreement contained a clause that the same should not be put into the possession of the company until one hundred subscribers were procured thereto, the company offered in evidence another agreement, said to be a copy of the first, and there were over one hundred names subscribed to the two, but there was no evidence of the genuineness of any one signature: Held, that the securing one hundred subscribers was a condition precedent to the company having any beneficial interest under the contract, and that it was not sufficient that so many names appeared, but it was necessary to have shown that the signatures were genuine, in order to admit the argreement in evidence.</p> <p>3. Contract—avoided became induced by fraudulent misrepresentations. Where a railroad was located over a person’s farm and through his orchard and a part of his dwelling house, and the owner was an unlettered man, being unable to read or w

Judges: McAllister

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.