Smith v. State of Illinois — 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 348

JOHN A. SMITH AND HELENE SMITH, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimants sought damages for property allegedly harmed by a state highway bridge construction that raised the road grade. The court found no damage beyond offsetting benefits and denied the claim, also denying a rehearing.

Claim type: Other

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

PROPERTY DAMAGE-when no award will be made for damage to property REHEARING-when rehearing will be denied. The Court being fully ad- PROPERTY DAMAGE-when claimant is barred by condemnation proceed-

Rehearing denied December 18, 1929. PROPERTY DAMAGE-when no award will be made for damage to property by reason of the construction of a hard road. Where the record shows that the benefits to an adjacent property owner exceed the damages by reason of the construction of a hard road no award will be made. REHEARING-when rehearing will be denied. The Court being fully advised in the premises finds no cause for a rehearing and therefore denies the petition. JOHN LAUX, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; ROY D. JOHNSON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARDY delivered the opinion of the court.

It appears that in the year 1924 and subsequent thereto, the claimants owned a piece of property at the intersection of route 19, State hardroad system. The property was located in the town of Fox River Grove. It is claimed there is a hotel and a boat and livery business on the property. In 1925 the State Highway Department built a bridge and it is claimed that the grade of the road approaching the bridge was raised from one to six feet.

The court, in going over the whole matter, is of the opinion that there must be some benefits to a claimant of this char[*349]actor in the building of the hard road by his place of business, and we do not believe the record in the case shows any damage beyond the benefits that can be considered.

Therefore, it is recommended that claim be denied.

On December 18, 1929, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed: This matter coming on to be heard upon petition for rehearing and the court being fully advised in the premises find no cause for rehearing.

Therefore petition for rehearing is denied. (Claims denied.)

H. C. LAMPP, 1368; J. W. FINNEY, 1369, ELEXANDER PYLE, 1370,