Plаintiffs, Eldon L. Stroup and Hilda Stroup, and defendant, Charlotte Codo, are owners of adjoining commercial lots which abut at their northern boundaries upon West Jefferson Street in the City of Joliet. Both lots are shaped as parallelograms, the plaintiffs having frontage of 110 feet, the defendants having frontage of forty feеt, and the depth of each lot being 139 feet. A one-story frame building measuring approximately 18' x 36' located at the northeast corner of plaintiffs’ lot has bеen used for some time during warmer seasons of every year as a drive-in ice cream stand. A fence located approximately three feet еasterly of plaintiffs’ western boundary, and along its length, is the only physical barrier between the lots in question. James Alessio, d/b/a Alessio & Sons, also a defendant, as general contractor to Codo, completed construction of a concrete block building upon her aforementioned lot in January, 1964. During the follоwing May, plaintiffs had their premises surveyed, and thereupon discovered that the easterly side of the new Codo building, measuring thirty-two feet from north to south, protrudes across their western property line. The encroachment measures approximately
Plaintiffs contend on appeal that the court’s finding that the encroachment was unintentional is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the order denying injunctive relief, which depends for its validity upon the correctness of this finding, must therefore fail. They also contend that the encroachment is not slight, and thаt the contrary finding is also against the manifest weight of the evidence. In addition, plaintiffs argue that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 to evidence over their objection.
This exhibit purports upon its face to be a plat of survey of the Codo premises, bearing the signature, certificate, and seal of a person identified thereon as a Registered Illinois Land Surveyor. James Alessio, called as an adverse witness on behalf of plaintiffs, testified that after entering the agreement to construct the building for Mrs. Codo, he was furnished with a plat of the premises by her husband. He testified generally as to
Wе think the ruling admitting defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 to evidence was not prejudicial error. James Alessio, when called by plaintiffs, had already testified, without contradiction, as to what the plat showed; that it was given to him by Mr. Codo; and that he had made his calculations regarding the location of the building in reliance upon this plat. In view of this testimony and the limitations upon the offer, and that Mrs. Codo did not dispute the fact of an encroachment, the admission of this plat without sufficient authentication, and for limited purposes, as cumulative evidence, corroborating other competent testimony not disputed, was not harmful. Bradley v. Western Casket & Undertaking Cо., 185 Ill App 375. See also Curtin v. Mann, 258 Ill App 419; Schumacher v. Klitzing, 269 Ill App 60; Chapin v. Foege,
It is an accepted principle of law that where an encroachmеnt is slight and unintentional and the cost of removing it great, and the corresponding benefit to the adjoining owner is small, and damages can be had, that courts will ordinarily rеfuse to grant injunctive relief, and will leave the complaining party to his remedy at law. See Pradelt v. Lewis, 297 Ill 374,
We have carefully reviewed the record and agree with the finding of the Chancellor that there is not sufficient evidence to support plaintiffs’ thesis that Mrs. Codo procеeded with construction after notice of the encroachment, and we also agree, considering all the facts in the record, that the encroаchment is slight. As to whether the precautions taken by Mrs. Codo were so wanting or minimal as to show wilfulness, we note the record shows that her contractor locаted stakes at the corners of her lot from data on a plat which Mrs. Codo received at the time the tract was purchased in 1963. Measurements and cоmputations were made from this plat by the general contractor and followed in the construction. Nothing in the record indicates that Mrs. Codo or her cоntractor had reason to know or believe that the plat relied upon was inaccurate or untrustworthy.
Affirmed.