#### Honora Gogerty, Appellee, v. City of Decatur, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William C. Johns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 16, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Honora Gogerty against the City of Decatur to recover damages to plaintiff’s real estate caused by the lowering of the street in front of the property to make an underground railroad crossing.

The declaration was in three counts. The first count, in substance, alleged that the City of Decatur *549made “large excavations and did cut out of said street and dig up the same with scrapers, spades and shovels, and other implements, so that the street is cut down from its original grade, to-wit, sixteen feet, .immediately in front of and contiguous to plaintiff’s premises on said North Jasper street, for the purpose of a subway under the tracks of a certain railway therein situate.” The declaration further charges that the plaintiff’s property and buildings have been much injured and damaged and the rental value thereof much impaired and lessened, and that by reason and in consequence thereof, the market value of plaintiff’s said property has been and is injured and is much depreciated, all caused and occasioned by the said defendant, and that such depreciation is special to said premises, and that by means thereof plaintiff’s premises have* become particularly worthless and of lessened value to her.

The second count alleged that plaintiff was entitled to the peaceable enjoyment of her property, etc., without said premises being damaged or injured by the wrongful or illegal acts upon the part of the defendant which permanently and specially depreciated the value of said premises; and further alleged that an excavation was made which lowered the grade or surface in front of plaintiff’s premises on Jasper street, to wit, sixteen feet extending northward and southward one hundred feet in each direction, and by the means whereof, the right of egress from Jasper street to and from plaintiff’s premises was cut off and totally destroyed, and that she sustained special damage, etc.

The third count of the declaration was a complete description of the premises, the change of grade, and stated that the plaintiff’s property had been specially and permanently damaged and that all of these acts were without the consent of the plaintiff. A general demurrer to the declaration being overruled, the appellant filed a plea of not guilty. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.

*550Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal cobpobations, § 448 * —when suit for damages resulting from lowering grade of street not premature. An action against a city to recover damages to property by reason of lowering the grade of the street in front thereof, held not prematurely brought where the work in front of the property had been substantially completed and had progressed to such an extent as to obstruct ingress and egress at the time the suit was commenced.

2. Municipal cobpobations, § 451*—when permitting jury to damaged premises not error. In an action against a city for damages resulting to property by lowering the grade of the street, permitting the jury to view the premises, held not an abuse of discretion and not error, it appearing that the jury were instructed that the view was not evidence.

3. Evidence, § 365*—opinions. The qualification of witnesses to give their opinion is a question for the court in the first instance, but the weight to be given their opinions is to be determined by the jury, from the knowledge and experience of the witnesses and their capacity to form a judgment.

4. Evidence, § 372*—persons qualified to give opinion as to value. All persons who are acquainted with property and have opinions of its value may give their opinions to the jury, together with their knowledge of the property and the facts upon which the opinions are based.

5. Evidence, § 372*—when witnesses qualified to give opinion as to value of real estate. Witnesses held properly qualified to give their opinion of the value of real estate, where they stated that they were acquainted with the situation and location of the property and in a general way were acquainted with the value of real estate in the locality where the property in question is located.

Baldwin & Carey, for appellant; James S. Baldwin and William J. Carey, of counsel.

Whitley, Fitzgerald & McLaughlin, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the court.