{
  "id": 5400335,
  "name": "City of Alton, Appellant, v. George Miller, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Alton v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "155",
  "last_page": "157",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ill. App. 155"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 6308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36626556220073064
    },
    "sha256": "d303d33425ff80511f8cb1c13c2163f7051aa009946efc14f6d3a8ca515b1b06",
    "simhash": "1:211b40c6188ff071",
    "word_count": 1004
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:48.967362+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Alton, Appellant, v. George Miller, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1458 \u2014when variance between declaration and proof is immaterial. Failure to prove or introduce in evidence certain ordinances referred to in certain additional counts of the declaration, held immaterial on appeal where the original declaration was sufficient to sustain the judgment.\n3. Municipal cobpobations, \u00a7 449a*\u2014when evidence sufficient in action for damages for construction of sidewalk above grade. In an action by a property owner against a city to recover damages for the construction of a sidewalk above grade, in front of plaintiff\u2019s building, evidence held to support the charge in the declaration that defendant constructed the sidewalk at a higher elevation than the established grade, or the grade upon which plaintiff had constructed his sidewalk.\n4. Municipal cobpobations\u2014when city estopped to claim that grade is not proper. Where plaintiff erected his building and laid his sidewalk in front thereof in accordance with the grade fixed, on plaintiff\u2019s application, by. the defendant\u2019s engineer, on an improved street, with brick pavement and curbing along the side, and the curbing in front of plaintiff\u2019s premises at grade, held that defendant would be estopped from claiming that the grade of the curb was not the proper grade in front of plaintiff\u2019s premises.\n5. Municipal cobpobations, \u00a7 430*\u2014when city liable for construction of sidewalk above grade. Whether the grade furnished plaintiff by defendant city upon which he erected his building and .built his sidewalk was too low, or defendant, in building its sidewalk, got it above the proper grade, held that defendant would be liable for the condition created.\n6. Municipal cobpobations, \u00a7 450 \u2014when evidence as to statements -by plaintiff that he thought his building was above grade is immaterial. In an action by a property owner against a city to recover damages for the construction of a sidewalk above grade in front of plaintiff\u2019s building, evidence as to statements by plaintiff that he thought his building was constructed too low, held properly excluded, as such statements would have no tendency to show plaintiff did not properly construct his building in compliance with the established grade.\n7. Municipal cobpobations, \u00a7 452*\u2014when instructions on damages \u25a0for construction of sidewalk above grade properly refused as not in conformity with evidence. In an action by a property owner against a city to recover damages for the construction of a sidewalk above grade in front of plaintiff\u2019s building, instructions ignoring the evidence tending to show that in determining the grade at which plaintiff would erect his building he was governed by a grade established by the proper officers of defendant, held properly refused.\n8. Instructions, \u00a7 151*\u2014when refusal of requested instruction proper. Refusal to give an instruction worded somewhat differently from but the substance of one already given, held not erroneous.\n9. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 453*\u2014when damages for construction of sidewalk above grade are not excessive. A verdict for $1416 damages held not excessive where by reason of the construction of defendant\u2019s sidewalk above grade the market value of plaintiff\u2019s premises was depreciated, water was thrown into his building and basement, causing the building and walls to- settle and crack, and the testimony of witnesses familiar with conditions estimated the damages at from $1,500 to $3,000.\n10. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1236 \u2014when defendant may not complain on review that damages are excessive. Where defendant did not controvert plaintiff\u2019s claim as to the character of the injuries inflicted upon him or their effect on his building, or call any witnesses to testify upon the question of depreciation in value of plaintiff\u2019s building or refute the valuations testified to by plaintiff\u2019s witnesses, held that defendant could not complain on review that the damages were excessive.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William P. Boynton, for appellant.",
      "J. V. E. Marsh, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Alton, Appellant, v. George Miller, Appellee.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 449 \u2014when pleas of estoppel \"by judgment in action for damages for construction of sidewalk are insufficient. In an action to recover damages against a city for the construction by it of a certain sidewalk above grade in front of plaintiff\u2019s building, special pleas setting up as res judicata of all questions of benefits and damages and estoppel of plaintiff, certain tax levy proceedings in court for the construction- of said sidewalk, held insufficient to charge that the provisions of the Local Improvement Act regulating the method of ascertaining compensation to be made for property taken or damaged were complied with in said proceedings, and demurrers thereto were properly sustained, as said pleas failed to allege that the petition in said proceedings prayed for steps to be taken to ascertain the just compensation to be made for private property to be taken or damaged for such improvement, or that said petition described plaintiff\u2019s property as property which would be so taken or damaged, os that on the filing of such petition certain appointments required by said act were made for the purpose of investigating and reporting as to such compensation, or that any report was made, filed or certified as to plaintiff\u2019s property in such proceeding, or that defendant in any other respect proceeded according to said act for ascertaining such compensation.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. George A. Crow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by George Miller, plaintiff, against the City of Alton, defendant, to recover damages for the construction by defendant of a certain sidewalk above grade in front of plaintiff\u2019s building. From a judgment for plaintiff for $1,416, defendant appeals.\nWilliam P. Boynton, for appellant.\nJ. V. E. Marsh, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0155-01",
  "first_page_order": 199,
  "last_page_order": 201
}