Skip to main content
· 6/15/1873

St. Louis, Vandalia & Terre Haute Railroad v. Capps

Citations

  • 67 Ill. 607

Syllabus

<p>1. Cask—damage to lot owner by constructing and operating railroad in public street fronting same. Where a railroad company constructed its track along a public street in front of plaintiff’s lots, occupied by him for mercantile business, under an ordinance of the town granting the right so to do, but which required the company to pay all damages to the property owners on such street that might accrue in consequence thereof, and the company, in constructing its road, made a deep excavation in the street in front of plaintiff’s lots, which diminished the value of the lots and injured the plaintiff’s business by making his place difficult of access and hazardous for teams to approach the same: Held, that the company, by accepting the ordinance and acting under it, became bound, by its terms, to pay the plaintiff all damage caused to his property, and also damages in his business.</p> <p>2. Same.—measure of damages,. In such a case the plaintiff is entitled to recover, as damages, whatever diminution in value his real estate may have undergone in consequence of laying the railroad track; and to show this, testimony should be introduced as to the market value of the property, before and since the injury, laying out of view any inflated value arising from any cause. On this head proof of the rental value before and since the construction of the road, would furnish some criterion by which to determine the extent of the injury to the property.</p> <p>3. Same—measure of damages as to business. The plaintiff is also entitled to damages for interruption to his business during such time as would have been necessarily employed in accommodating himself to another place of business, equally eligible, and his removal thereto. During such time, the damages to his business should be ascertained by proof of the probable and reasonable profits which might have been made upon sales, had there been no interruption. The necessary reasonable expense of removal is also a proper element

Judges: Breese

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.