SUSANNA A. RITTER AND SUSANNA A. RITTER, GERTRUDE TILLEY, HELEN CATRON, ELIZABETH ULLRICH, ~ ~ ILLIA BRITTER. ICHARLES RITTER, LORETTA KOENEGSTIN, LEO RITTER, MARCELLA TERRY, SURVIVING HEIRS OF GEORGE RITTER, DECEASED, Claimants, v. STATE O FILLINOIS, Respondent. Opinioa $led March 3, 1348. GEORGE W. DOWELL
Case summary
Claimants sought damages for alleged injury to adjacent property from highway construction on land dedicated by their predecessor. The court denied the claim, holding that dedication for highway purposes presumes compensation for adjacent damages and that heirs take subject to the dedication.
Cases cited: Bnber vs. State, 9 C. C. R., 115; S z e k n ~ a i zvs. State, 10 C. C. R., 286
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; ROBERT V. OSTROM,Assistant Attorney General, f o r respondent.
- D EDICATION OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC us-effect of deed of. Where a portion of lands of grantors.is acquired for public use, by deed of dedication, instead of by condemnation, the payment of the consideration agreed upon has the same effect as the assessment of damages i n condemnation and includes all damages to the remainder of the contiguous land of the dedicators, the same as in condemnation proceedings,
- S a ~ ~ - d a m a g et o part o f land not acquired under- alleged t o have resulted f r o m constructton of public amproverment-when award for must be denaed. Where a grantor conveys a portion of his land to the State, for public use by deed of dedication, he cannot recover for any damages to contiguous land owned by him, which might result from a proper construction of, or the use and occupation of a public improvement upon the land conveyed by said deed of dedication.
- SAnrc-subseq?lent Owners of land Contiguoiis t o t h a t conveyed t a k e siibject t o condations created by. Subsequent owners of lands, contiguous to , land acquired by State under deed of dedication, take same with notice of, and subject to all conditions created by said deed, so executed by their prede cessor in title.
Claimants allege ownership of “a part of the Northeast
quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 5
South, Range 3 West of the Third Principal ‘Meridian, Perry
County, Illinois,77and seek damages in the sum of Three
Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) to adjacent property resulting from the construction of State Bond Issue Route 13, Con
struction Section 175, through and parallel a part of said land.
The record consists of the cornplaint, amended complaint, copy of deed of dedication, copy of plat attached and a part of said deed, motion to dismiss by respondent, affidavit by M.I<. Lingle, Engineer of Claims, State of Illinois, Department of Public Works and Buildings, in support of said motion to dismiss, and statement, brief and argument on behalf of respondent on motion to dismiss.
From the record, it appears that on September 9, 1933, George Ritter and Susannah A. Ritter, husband and wife, executed and deIivered to the People of the State of Illinois, a deed dedicating a part of the lands described in the complaint herein, which deed was duly recorded November 28, 1934, in the office of the Recorder, Perry County, Illinois.
There is no allegation that the construction was not properly done or that the same was not in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor.
The dedication of the land involved was for the purpose of a public highway and, where there is a dedication for a certain purpose, the law presumes that the consideration for the dedication is based not only on the value of the land dedicated but also includes damages sustained to contiguous land of the owner by reason of the improvement.
Bnber vs. State, 9 C. C. R., 115.
S z e k n ~ a i zvs. State, 10 C. C. R., 286.
There is no allegation, or showing, that ihe construction of the said highway or use of the land was of a nature or purpose other than that for which it was dedicated.
Subsequent to the deed of dedication and prior to the construction of the said highway, George Ritter died, leaving these claimants his heirs at law.
[*405] Susanna A. Ritter joined in the deed of dedication, and all claimants herein derived their interest in the land as heirs of George Ritter, deceased, who, during his lifetime, dedicated the land for the purpose for which it was used. As such heirs, claimants must take the land subject to conditions created by the deed of dedication executed by their predecessor in title.
For the reasons cited herein, the motion of respondent to dismiss, must be allowed, and the complaint is accordingly dismissed.