{ "id": 4967464, "name": "The City of Johnston City, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "City of Johnston City v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad", "decision_date": "1919-10-27", "docket_number": "No. 12816", "first_page": "407", "last_page": "413", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "289 Ill. 407" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "276 Ill. 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4853311 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/276/0490-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 Ill. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 6044968 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/264/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 Ill. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4716655 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/257/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 Ill. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4750976 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/262/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 Ill. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4873188 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/278/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 Ill. 98", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4854223 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/276/0098-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 461, "char_count": 12603, "ocr_confidence": 0.725, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.5828155114230504e-08, "percentile": 0.28713083272422446 }, "sha256": "a00e3b19d8e95e365a7e0da7e7432fead9877a3b9639757c8a54c17ed7050b03", "simhash": "1:f28c5c868fd5cb62", "word_count": 2184 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:21.764679+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The City of Johnston City, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal is prosecuted to review a judgment of the county court of Williamson county overruling objections of the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company to a special assessment levied by the city of Johnston City upon the depot grounds and \u00e1 portion of the right of way of the company to pay the cost of paving Broadway, a public street crossing the property of appellant at right angles,* in the center of the business district of Johnston City, Illinois. .\nAbout 1894 the Chicago, Paducah and Memphis Railroad Company acquired a right of way 90 feet in width, and constructed thereon a railroad passing north and south through the territory that has since become Johnston City. Along the west side of its right of way, at a point 116 feet south of what is now Broadway in Johnston City, the company located its station. Shortly after this there was laid out on the east side of the right of way the original survey of Johnston City. The principal street then established in Johnston City was Broadway, running east and west through the city. It was laid out 60 feet in width and on each side blocks were divided into lots. Along the east side of appellant\u2019s right of way were fractional blocks, called \u201cout-lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.\u201d Out-lot 1 is the farthest north and is separated from out-lot 2 by Lake View alley. Out-lot 2 is immediately north of Broadway and out-lot 3 immediately south of Broadway. Further south is out-lot 4, separated from out-lot 3 by Sunflower alley. Extending along the east line of these four out-lots, and parallel with the right of way, is Main street of Johnston City, being 60 feet, wide. February 20, 1897, appellant purchased this- right of way from the Chicago, Paducah and Memphis Railroad Company, and August 4, 1897, it purchased from the owners out-lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Shortly thereafter it built its present depot, which is located on out-lot 4. In 1901 another addition was added to Johnston City, and lots and blocks were laid out on the west side of the right of way. Broadway was extended 60 feet wide across the appellant\u2019s right of way. Along the west line of appellant\u2019s right of way is Water street. For a block north of Broadway' and half a block south of Broadway the west 20 feet of the original right of way is now the east 20 feet of Water street. At Sunflower alley Water street jogs west and appellant\u2019s right of way at this point is made 70 feet wider. Appellant\u2019s right of way north of Broadway is now 1x1 feet wide, \u2014 67 feet from the center of the track to the west line of Main street and 44 feet from the center of the track to the east line of Water street. There are no buildings on that part of the right of way in the block north of Broadway. South of Broadway the right of way is the same width for half a block and then 70 feet are added on the west at a .point opposite-the station located on out-lot 4. In this space west of the main line is an industrial siding and also some coal sheds and grain houses. These sheds and houses are on Water street, in the widened portion of appellant\u2019s right of way, and the north building is 116 feet south of the south line of Broadway. The sheds and, houses are owned by private concerns, to whom the land is leased by appellant. Out-lot 3 is vacant and is used only by teamsters, transfer men and patrons of appellant;\nThe assessment roll was filed March 20, 1918, and the property of appellant was described as follows: \u201cAll that portion of the right of way, way lands and depot grounds of the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company that is located and situated in the city of Johnston City, Illinois, and that lies between the westerly prolongation of the south line of Grant street and the westerly prolongation of the south line of Lincoln street, in said city of Johnston City, Illinois.\u201d Said property was assessed $1832.14. April 6, 1918, the appellant filed objections as follows:\n1. \u201cYour objector objects to the confirmation of said assessment by this honorable court as to all of the property belonging to the objector included in said assessment lying north of Broadway street, in the said city of Johns- . ton City, Illinois, because said property is used exclusively for the running of trains by this objector and for no other uses or purposes, and is therefore not benefited by said proposed pavement along said Broadway avenue or street, and therefore any assessment against it would be null and void.\n2: \u201cThis objector objects to the confirmation of said assessment covering that part of its property lying on the west side of its main track, in the said city of Johnston City, Illinois, south of said Broadway avenue or street, for the reason that said property is used by the objector exclusively for the running of trains and for no other purposes, and is therefore not benefited by said proposed pavement along and over said Broadway street or avenue, and any assessment against it would therefore be null and void.\n3. \u201cThis objector objects to the confirmation of said assessment because the same is unfair and unjust and discriminatory against this objector and its property and not equitably assessed with the property of other individuals lying adjacent to the said Broadway avenue in this: That said proposed assessment includes all of the property of this objector lying between Broadway and Grant street, in said city of Johnston City, on the north side of said Broadway avenue or street, and all of this objector\u2019s property between Broadway and Lincoln street on the south side of Broadway avenue or street, in the said city of Johnston City, whereas said assessment only assesses the property of other property owners fronting on Broadway back to the first alley to the north of Broadway street and the first alley south of Broadway street, and said assessment is therefore unjust, inequitable and discriminatory against the property and the rights of this objector.\n4. \u201cThis objector objects to the confirmation of said assessment against its property herein described for the reasons herein stated, and respectfully asks that said assessment roll as to this objector\u2019s property be not confirmed or allowed by this honorable court, the said assessment proposed to be assessed against your objector being the sum of $1832.14, as shown by the assessment roll filed herein.\u201d\nThere are unusual conditions under which a railroad right of way can be said to be benefited by a local improvement, but as a general rule it cannot be. (City of Highwood v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. 276 Ill. 98.) The limit of an assessment for benefits resulting from paving a street is the enhanced value of the property, and where its use is restricted to the running of trains there can be no assessment unless the value is increased for that, use. (City of Chicago v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. 278 Ill. 86.) Where the property is restricted by statute or grant to a particular use and cannot be legally applied to any other use and is at the time of the improvement devoted to such particular use, the true.measure of the benefit which the improvement will confer is the increased value for the restricted use, in the absence of proof reasonably tending to show that the property in question, having regard to present conditions and the existing business and wants of the public, is about to be devoted to other uses. (City of Lincoln v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Co. 262 Ill. 11.) In this State, however, it is a settled rule that the property of a railroad corporation, even though used for railroad purposes, if benefited, may be assessed for a local improvement. (City of Kankakee v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 257 Ill. 298.) But an increase in freight traffic and the general business of appellant cannot be considered in assessing benefits to'its right of way. City of Kankakee v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 264 Ill. 69.\nOn the hearing on the objections filed, appellee introduced evidence showing the increased value of out-lots 1, 2 and 3 as commercial propositions. There is nothing in the record to justify the claim that the railroad company is holding these lots for purely commercial purposes. The right of way on either side of Broadway, including out-lots 1, 2 and 3, is only m feet wide, which is certainly none too wide for railroad purposes within a city. Such evidence clearly had nothing to do with determining the legal question as to whether or not this tract of land was at all subject to special assessment, and the court erred in admitting it.\nAt the time appellee sought to subject app\u00e9llant\u2019s property north of Broadway to this assessment, and for a long time prior thereto, that part of its right of way had been used exclusively in the operation of its train \u00a1service and for no other purpose. There is nothing showing that this property will ever be used for any other purpose than the operation of trains, and it is not disclosed how it can be made more valuable for that purpose by this improvement. Therefore it is inconceivable how this contemplated improvement will benefit that particular portion of appellant\u2019s right of way, and the court erred in overruling appellant\u2019s objection No. i.\nA part of the property south of Broadway and west of appellant\u2019s main line was leased by appellant to certain private individuals and will probably be benefited some by the improvement of Broadway. The benefit will necessarily be considerably lessened by the fact that this leased property is 116 feet off Broadway. That part of the right of way south of Broadway and east of the main line, \u2014 out-lots 3 and 4, \u2014 must all be considered station grounds. No other use has ever been made of out-lot 3, which lies between the station and Broadway, except as a means of access to the station proper and to appellant\u2019s right of way by teamster\u2019s and other patrons of appellant. This property will necessarily be benefited by the improvement. Appellant\u2019s objection No. 2 was therefore properly overruled.\nThere was no error in overruling appellant\u2019s objection No. 3, because it is not necessary that the property assessed should abut upon the improvement, nor is a special assessment made upon the number of square feet in the property or upon the feet of frontage, but it is made upon a basis of benefits. City of East St. Louis v. Vogel, 276 Ill. 490.\nFor the errors hereinbefore pointed, out it will be necessary to reverse the judgment. The judgment of the county court of Williamson county is therefore reversed and the cause remanded to that court, with directions to hear evidence in accordance with the views herein expressed, to determine the benefits accruing to that portion of appellant\u2019s right of way in the block south of Broadway.\nReversed and remanded, with directions.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson" } ], "attorneys": [ "H. T. Dick, and E. M. SpillER, for appellant.", "Hosea V. Ferrell, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 12816.\nReversed and remanded.)\nThe City of Johnston City, Appellee, vs. The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, Appellant.\nOpinion filed October 27, 1919.\n1. Special assessments \u2014 when, only, can railroad right of way be assessed for paving street. As the limit of a special assessment for benefits resulting from paving a street is the enhanced value of the property assessed, if the use of railroad property is restricted to the running of trains there can be no assessment unless the value is increased for that use.\n2. Same \u2014 property devoted to restricted use must be benefited for that use. Where property is restricted by statute or grant to a particular use and is at the time of the improvement devoted to such use, the true measure of the benefit which the improvement will confer is the increased value for the restricted use, in the absence of proof reasonably tending to show that the property, under present conditions, is about to be devoted to other uses:\n3. Same \u2014 increase in freight traffic cannot be considered in assessing benefits to right of way of railroad. An increase in freight traffic and the general business of a railroad company cannot be considered in assessing benefits to its right of way from the paving of a street.\n4. Same \u2014 property assessed need not abut upon the improvement. In assessing property for the paving of a street it is not necessary that the property assessed shall abut upon the improvement; nor is a special assessment made upon the number of square feet in the property or upon the feet of frontage, but it is made upon a basis of benefits.\nAppeal from the County Court of Williamson county; the Hon. W. F. Slater, Judge, presiding.\nH. T. Dick, and E. M. SpillER, for appellant.\nHosea V. Ferrell, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0407-01", "first_page_order": 407, "last_page_order": 413 }