HENRY E. WIER v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Case summary
Claimant sought damages for overflow of his lands along the Illinois river caused by a dam built by the State. The court reviewed conflicting evidence and awarded $150, finding that claimant owned about 62 acres and that the damage did not exceed that amount.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- DAMAGES-overflow of lands through construction of dam. Court
HENRY E. WIER
v.
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed September 19, 1889.
DAMAGES-overflow of lands through construction of dam. Court reviews evidence and holds claimant is entitled to recover.
This claim was filed on the 20th of October, A. D. 1877, with the Auditor of Public Accounts of the State of Illinois, for damages to lands owned by claimant lying along the Illinois river in the bottoms above Coppers Creek dam built by the State and completed October 21, 1877.
The claim was proven up according to law, due notice having been given the Attorney General as required by law. Upon hearing the arguments of counsel on behalf of claimant and of the Attorney General on behalf of the State, and upon due consideration thereof and of the evidence on file it was considered by the Commission that claimant had sustained his demand to the extent of $150.
It was determined and found by the Commission that claimant only owned at the time of the completion of said dam about 62 acres of the west side of the fractional northwest quarter of section two (2) in township 20 north of range 8 west of the 3d P. M., and that it was not damaged to exceed the sum awarded.
The evidence in the case is conflicting, and the Commission found it impossible to reconcile all the various statements of the witnesses on the part of the complainant with themselves nor with the views and report of the engineer appointed by a former Commission under the Act of the General Assembly, in force July 1, 1881; but upon the whole were satisfied that claimant had sustained damage to some extent and that he was justly entitled to the amount awarded and no more.