Farlow, et al. v. State of Illinois — 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 446

GERALD C. FARLOW, MILDRED L. NELSON, FORMERLY MILDRED L. FARLOW, MARY E. FARLOW, RACHAEL WINIFRED FARLOW, AND JEANETTE J. FARLOW, Claimants, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Re- spondent.

Case summary

Claimants sought $7,500 for land taken via condemnation for a state bond issue road, but the condemnation proceedings were regular and $100 was awarded to the record title owner. The court denied the claim because claimants failed to record their deed before the proceedings and the State was not at fault.

Claim type: Property Damage

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

Headnotes

JEANETTE J. FARLOW, Claimants, vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Re- EMINENT DOMAIN-when service upon title owner of record is sufficient

EMINENT DOMAIN-when service upon title owner of record is sufficient in condemnation proceedings. Where the State obtains service upon the title holder of record in a condemnation proceeding in procuring land for highway purposes, and the condemnation proceedings are regular, and reasonable compensation allowed and accepted by the owner of record, and the State is at no fault in obtaining service upon the record title owners, such service of process is sufficient and the holder of an unrecorded deed to the land in question is precluded from maintaining an action in this court either as a matter of law or as a matter of equity and good conscience. L. FRED O'BRIEN, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; ROY D. JOHNSON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARITY delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case the claimants asked for Seventy-five Hundred ($7,500.00) Dollars for certain land taken from them through a condemnation proceedings in the construction of a State Bond Issue Road. The land in question is located three miles west of Augusta, Illinois, and known as the Farlow Farm.

A condemnation proceedings was had in a court of general jurisdiction. At the time of the condemnation the records of the county showed that the title was in one W. O. Farlow; that damages were awarded by the jury in the sum of $100.00 and accepted by the said W. O. Farlow. It now appears that claimants allege that they had a deed to said promises but it was not recorded at the time of the filing of the condemnation proceedings. Therefore the State only got service on W. O. Farlow the title owner on the records of the County of Hancock. [*447]

There is nothing in the records to indicate other than that the condemnation proceedings were regular and that a proper and reasonable compensation was allowed by a verdict of a jury in the sum of $100.00 and it appears that W. O. Farlow accepted this money and it would seem that, that should settle the controversy as to the land taken in question. It would appear to this court that there is no reason either as a matter of law or as a matter of equity and good conscience in any question determined in a court of general jurisdiction on the question of value. It would appear that a jury's verdict would be a good criterion as to the damages sustained. Therefore this court will not pass on that question.

It would appear to the court that this is a matter between W. O. Farlow and claimants and it would not appear proper for the State of Illinois through this court to consider a matter in behalf of the claimants who failed to file their deed in proper time and wherein a jury passed upon the matter of damages and wherein the State of Illinois was at no fault in the matter of getting service on the record title owners in the condemnation proceedings.

Therefore this court recommends that the claim be disallowed.