119 Ill. 287 | Ill. | 1887
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The petition in this case was exhibited by the Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company, and the object was to have a strip of land, particularly described, and alleged to belong to Lorenzo C. Ward, condemned, under the Eminent Domain act, for the right of .way upon which to construct its railroad track. The proceedings on the petition were had in the circuit court of Kane county. Before the trial was commenced, defendant filed a cross-petition, in which he described the lands owned by him, of which the strip proposed to be taken by the railroad company for its right of way, formed a part, and showing how it would be affected by cutting off from •the main body of his land the strip to be condemned, and the construction of the .railroad upon it, and asked to have the damages assessed 'to him for the injury that would be done to the entire body of his land. The cause was submitted to a jury on the original and the cross-petitions, who, after viewing the premises and hearing the evidence offered by both parties, returned a verdict allowing the owner, for the right of way, $1800, and for damages, $1700, making a total sum of $3500, for which amount the court rendered judgment, in the usual form. The land owner brings the case to this court on appeal.
It will be observed, the petition states every fact the law requires to be stated to give the court jurisdiction to hear and determine the condemnation proceedings. It is distinctly alleged, petitioner is a corporation duly created, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and that it is authorized, by its articles of incorporation, to construct, operate and maintain a railroad between certain terminal points within the State; that it intends to construct a railroad, as authorized by its articles of incorporation, and that the lands of defendant are necessary for use for the right of way; that petitioner, by its proper officers, has located its line of road over the lands of defendant; that it is unable to agree with the owner as to the compensation to be made for the taking of his land, and therefore asks that the compensation to be made to the owner for that portion of his land taken, may be assessed under the statute. No question is made as to the form or sufficiency of the petition, but it is objected, no proof was made, on the trial, that petitioner was either a dejare or de facto corporation, and it is insisted the omission to make such proof is fatal to the present condemnation judgment. Several answers may be made to the position taken.
First—Defendant waived the making of such proof by going to trial on the merits of the controversy, without objection. Even if proof is required to be made of the formal allegations of the petition, such proof is to be addressed to the court, and not to the jury. Whether the petitioner, in such cases, is a corporation, and is authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain, is a question to be determined by the court, and with which the jury have no concern. It is a preliminary question, and if the land owner goes to trial on the merits, without requiring such proof to be made, it will be understood he waives the making of the proof, and admits the capacity in which the petitioner sues. The fact that no formal answer may be required to be made to the petition, under the practice that prevails in this State, would not prevent defendant from objecting that petitioner shall not proceed to ascertain the compensation to be paid, until proof is made it is a corporation, either de jure or de facto, under the law, and .as such is authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain. In this case, defendant went to trial on the merits, without objection as to the right of petitioner to condemn his land for public purposes, and he will be held to have waived the necessity for making proof of such right.
Second—There is some proof the petitioner is a corporation de facto, and that is all the law requires in this class of cases. There is evidence, although it may be slight, of corporate acts done by petitioner. It appears an engineer has been appointed, the line of the proposed road has been located, and other steps taken towards the building of the road, to be constructed between points named, and among other things done, the line of road has been located over lands owned by defendant. These aré corporate acts, and tend to show petitioner is a corporation defacto.
Third—By filing a cross-petition, asking to have damages assessed for the injury done to his lands not taken, defendant admits petitioner has the right to exercise the right of eminent domain, and may lawfully condemn his lands for public purposes. This, of course, it could not do unless it was a corporation, in fact and in law. Admitting, as the cross-petition does, petitioner’s right to condemn defendant’s land, dispenses with any necessity for proof that petitioner is a corporation, as alleged in the petition. In the cross-petition, reference is made to the “said railroad company,”—that is, the corporation mentioned in the original petition asking for the condemnation of defendant’s land. It may also be said, defendant, further recognized petitioner as a de facto corporation by asking the court for a rule upon petitioner to exhibit its plan and profile of its projected railroad across his lands so proposed to be condemned. The court might well have understood, from these and other facts appearing in the record, defendant did not require any preliminary proof to be made of petitioner’s corporate capacity, and of its right to condemn lands for public uses.
It is insisted, there was no proof offered on the allegation, petitioner was unable to agree with the owner as to compensation to be paid for the land sought to be taken. Without conceding it is necessary to make such proof, that fact, alleged in the petition, is very apparent. It is true, no direct testimony was offered, but the fact there is a vigorous contest between the land owner and the corporation, both on the original as well as upon the cross-petition, .makes it evident the parties were unable to agree as to the compensation to be paid for the land to be condemned. It w'ould have been idle to offer direct testimony on a point in the case that both parties conceded.
Finally, it is said, neither the verdict of the jury nor the judgment of the court is supported by the evidence. The testimony contained in the record as to the damages defendant would sustain by reason of -taking a portion of his land and the construction of the railroad upon it, has been subjected to a careful and close study. It is found to be conflicting in the extreme. Witnesses, so far as this court can know, of equal candor, and opportunities to form a correct judgment concerning the matters about which they were called to testify, differ widely as to the value of the land taken, and the damages that would otherwise be sustained. It is upon such questions the verdict of a jury, drawn from the vicinity, is regarded of great value. In this case, the jury not only saw and heard the respective witnesses, but had the advantage of viewing the premises before making up their verdict. Great weight, therefore, ought to be given to their judgment as to the matters submitted to them. The question made as to the damages sustained, is, of course, purely a question of fact, concerning which the evidence is so conflicting this court ■would not feel at liberty to disturb the finding of the jury, under the circumstances.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
Mr. Justice Magruder,
dissenting:
I can not concur in this decision. If Tom, Dick and Harry can get together and call themselves a railroad company, and, without proving even their de facto existence as a corporation, can take the land of the citizen against his will, then the law furnishes poor protection, indeed, to the ownership of property. To be sure, it is not necessary, that the company, seeking to exercise the right of eminent domain, shall prove itself to be, in all respects, a legally organized corporation, but it must at least show, that it is a body corporate de facto; and the usual evidences of such de facto existence are the charter and acts of user thereunder. 1 Wood’s Railroad Law, 16, 19; McAuley v. Columbus, Chicago and Indiana Central Ry. Co. 83 Ill. 348; Peoria and Pekin Union Ry. Co. v. Peoria and Farmington Ry. Co. 105 id. 110; Chicago and Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Chicago and Evanston Railroad Co. 112 id. 589.
In this record, there is not a particle of evidence to show, that there is any such corporate body as the Minnesota and Northwestern Bailroad Company. Not even the de facto existence of such a corporation has been established. No charter has been produced; no acts of user have been proven. It does not appear, that any organization of any kind has even been attempted, much less effected.
It is not sufficient to say, that the appellant should have objected, that there was no proof of corporate existence. It was necessary for the appellee to furnish such proof in the first place, in order to give the court jurisdiction to act in the premises. The second section of the Eminent Domain act provides, that the right to take private property for. public use, without the owner’s consent, must be conferred by “general law or special charter,” before the company, seeking to condemn, can file its petition. It can not proceed, until it has. proven that such right has been conferred by general law or special charter. The authority to condemn must be set forth in the petition “by reference,” so that parties interested can examine, and see whether the authority claimed actually exists. The right so to take private property for public use is a tremendous and dangerous power. It is an attribute of sovereignty, and, in conferring it upon a corporation, the State parts with a portion of- its oivn sovereignty. The exercise of such a power should be hedged about with all possible safeguards. The assertion of such a right should never be permittecl, except in strict conformity with the law of the land. Mitchell v. Illinois and St. Louis Railroad and Coal Co. 68 Ill. 286; Chicago and Alton Railroad Co. v. Smith, 78 id. 96.
The appellant could not set up an objection to the existence of the corporation in an answer or plea, as we have decided, that “under the Eminent Domain act an answer is not allowable, and the principle includes a plea.” Johnson v. Freeport and Mississippi River Ry. Co. 111 Ill. 413.
But it is said, that, inasmuch as the appellant has made use of the Avords, “the said railroad company, ” in his cross-petition, he has thereby admitted the existence of appellee, as a corporation de facto. It has been held, that a plea, denying the averment, that the plaintiff Avas a corporation, was overcome by proof, that defendant sold land to plaintiff and executed a deed to it, by its corporate name. (Wood v. Kingston Coal Co. 48 Ill. 356.) It has, also, been held, that the execution of a note and mortgage to a corporation, as such, is sufficient prima facie evidence of the existence of the corporation. (Brown v. Mortgage Co. 110 Ill. 235.) But in such eases, the party, affected by the evidence in question, has made a contract, or had dealings with the corporation, whose existence he denies. The cross-petition, however, does not embody or represent any transaction betAveen the petitioner and cross-petitioner. It is addressed to the court. In the present case, it is not sworn to, nor even signed, by appellant. It is signed by his attorneys, and is a mere pleading. It Avas filed only fifteen days after the original petition was filed, and before appellant had any reason for supposing, that appellee Avould fail to prove its existence, as a de facto corporation, upon the trial of the case. It had no other object than to bring before the court property of appellant, damaged and not described in. the original petition. It did not profess to admit or deny the corporate existence of appellee, but, in effect, to merely ask, that, if there Avas such a corporation, and it should take the land, sought to be condemned, it should also pay the damages to other lands, not taken. I do not think there is any allegation in the cross-petition, which relieved the appellee from the necessity of making the proofs, requisite to sustain its original petition.
