{
  "id": 4751574,
  "name": "The City of Lincoln, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Lincoln v. Chicago & Alton Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1914-02-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "98",
  "last_page": "101",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ill. 98"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "258 Ill. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4724792
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/258/0368-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 330,
    "char_count": 6099,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2269389344706595e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7784114054525959
    },
    "sha256": "c778bf346267d9e00596834dacc10cf0a5883872158d61c9b1b15667c0503baf",
    "simhash": "1:612bb0075b26eac5",
    "word_count": 1038
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:51:41.553453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The City of Lincoln, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn March 28, 1913, the city council of the city of Lincoln passed three ordinances for the paving, respectively, of Chicago street, Pulaski street and Broadway. Petitions were filed in the county court of Logan county for the levy of special assessments to pay the cost of the improvements and judgments of confirmation were entered, from which the ' Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, whose property was assessed in each proceeding, appealed.\nChicago street runs north-east and south-west, adjoining the railroad on the east. Pulaski street and Broadway cross Chicago street at right angles, Broadway immediately south of the depot and Pulaski street a block further south. The legal objections in the three cases were. heard together on the same evidence and overruled. The question of benefits as to the Chicago street improvement was then submitted to a jury, and as'to the Pulaski street and Broadway improvements to the court without a jury. This appeal is from the judgment in the case involving the paving of Broadway. The portion of the street to be paved extended from the west side of Chicago street, which is the east line of the railroad company\u2019s property, west about six blocks to Union street. The total cost of the improvement was estimated at $13,0-16.20, the public benefit at $1963.52, and the appellant\u2019s property, which adjoined the improvement 180 feet on each side thereof, was assessed $1637.70. Further facts material to be considered in the case are stated in the opinion in the case of City of Lincoln v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Co. (ante, p. 11,) which is an appeal from the case involving the Chicago street improvement. The same objection was made in this case as in that on account of the failure to assess the Lincoln Railway and Light Company, and it was properly overruled for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case. That opinion also disposes of the questions arising on the hearing in regard to benefits, out of the uses to which the property had been put and the restrictions on its use imposed by law or the deed by which it was held.\nAt the request of the petitioner the court held as a proposition of law that \u201cit makes no difference in this case whether or not such property assessed is used at present for such purpose that it will not be specially benefited \u2022\u2022by the proposed improvement or is put to any use to which the market value of the same is unimportant, and that in determining the amount of benefit to said property not only the present use to which said property is put may be considered, but it should also be considered whether or not' the market value of said property for any legitimate purpose for which the same may be used will be increased by reason of the construction of the proposed improvement.\u201d This stated the same principle of law as the instruction set out in the opinion in the case cited above, and for the reasons there given was erroneous.\nThe appellant complains because it says that on the trial of the question of benefits the court permitted certain witnesses to answer, over its objection, the question what in their opinion would be the benefits to the appellant\u2019s property described in the assessment roll by reason of the construction of the proposed improvement of Broadway. It is argued that this was permitting the witnesses to testify to the ultimate fact that the appellant would be benefited to the amount assessed, without showing the market value of the property before and after the improvement. The appellant\u2019s brief contains no reference to any place in the abstract where we may discover any ruling of the court which is claimed to be erroneous. The appellee in its brief denies that in any case a witness was permitted to answer as to the ultimate fact, and says that if this was done and the appellee\u2019s method was objectionable it was because the appellant had first adopted the same method, and says further that this objection was not made at the hearing. But the appellee also makes no reference to the abstract showing what really did occur. We might leave the matter there without further consideration, for we can hardly be expected to search through an abstract of more than two hundred pages to find the rulings of the court complained about. We have, however, ascertained from the abstract that the appellant asked of several witnesses whether in their opinion the appellant\u2019s property would be benefited- $1637.70 by the construction of the proposed improvement, and that the objection made to the question put to two or three of the witnesses for the appellee was, \u201cno foundation laid, and second, not descriptive of the purposes for which the property can be used.\u201d If an objection had been made to the appellant\u2019s question it should have been sustained., (City of Kankakee v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 258 Ill. 368.) Having first adopted this method of examination, however, the appellant cannot now complain that the appellee followed the same course, nor can it now present an objection not made in the trial court which might have been obviated if made there.\nThe judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dunn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. A. Covey, (Silas H. Strawn, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Uri Kissinger, City Attorney, (Humphrey & Anderson, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The City of Lincoln, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, Appellant.\nOpinion filed February 21, 1914.\n1. Appeals and Errors\u2014a party cannot complain of method of examining witnesses first adopted by him. An objector in a proceeding to confirm a special assessment cannot complain, on appeal, of a method of examining witnesses upon the subject of benefits where he was the first to adopt such method; nor can he urge an objection not made in the trial court which might have been obviated by amendment.\n2. The principal questions involved in this case are decided in City of Lincoln v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Co. (ante, p. 11.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Logan county; the Hon. Charles J. Gehlbach, Judge, presiding.\nW. A. Covey, (Silas H. Strawn, of counsel,) for appellant.\nUri Kissinger, City Attorney, (Humphrey & Anderson, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0098-01",
  "first_page_order": 98,
  "last_page_order": 101
}