RUBY SEFTON IEATTHEWS AND CENTRAL ILLINOIS BUILDING, LOAN AND HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION, No. 3517 AND MONETA E. REMINGTON,LOTTIE D. DAVIDSON,HARRY H. TAYLOR AND EFFEA. TAYLOR, No. 3519, Claimants, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimants sought damages for alleged property damage and loss of access caused by the construction of a subway on North Grant Avenue in Clinton, Illinois. The court denied the claims, likely because the claimants had dedicated the right of way to the State, barring recovery.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- DEDICATION OF P R o m n T Y Fon PUBLIC usE-constructaon of publac inaprovement thereoi+darnage to contagzious land of grantor not acqzcared by deed of dedacataon alleged to have reslclted therefrom- effect of de& of dedacataon as to release. Where private property is acquired by deed of dedication, for purpose of construction of public improvement, instead of by condemnation proceeding, the payment of the consideration agreed upon has the same effect as the assessment of damages in condemnation proceeding, and includes damages to contiguous property of grantor, not conveyed under deed, which may result from proper construction of said improvement, and all piast, present and future damages which the improvement may thereafter reasonably produce.
The claimant, Central Illinois Building Loan and Homestead Association, is the owner of the following real estate: [*194] Lot 1 2 in Block 2 in Crang’s Addition to Clinton, situated in the County of DeWitt, and State of Illinois, subject to contract for sale to the claimant, Ruby Sefton Matthews. On June 5, 1940, claimants jiled their complaint in this court alleging that the real estate had been damaged for public use within the meaning of Section 13, Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. The complaint aJleged that the construction of a subway by the State, on North Giant Avenue, in the City of Clinton, changed the grade at the intersecting point of the subway line and the property line of claimants’ property; that the construction of the subway cut off claimants’ natural, , most useful, and efficient means of access, and ingress and egress to and from their property; that the construction of the subway damaged the house located on the premises, damaged the foundation of the house, and damaged its interior furnishings; that the fair cash market value of the property before the construction was $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 ; that after the completion of the subway, the fair cash market value of the property was $600.00 to $750.00; and that claimants suffered damages in the amount of $1,000.00.
The claimant, Moneta I<. Remington, is the owner df the following real estate : Lot 8 in Block 2 in Crang’s Addition to the City of Clinton, situated in the County of DeWitt and State of Illinois.
subject to the rights of the claimant, Lotiie D. Davidson as tenant in possession. The claimants, Harry H. Taylor and Effe A. Taylor were the owners of the property at the time the alleged injury occurred. All damages to which they might be entitled as against the respondent have been assigned to the claimant, Moneta K. Remington. On June 5 , 1940, claimants filed their complaint in this court alleging that the real estate hac1 been damaged [*195] for public use within the meaning of Section 13, Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. The complaint alleged that the construction of the North Grant Avenue subway, and road improvement in connection therewith, lowered the level of North Grant Avenue adjacent to their property; that the subway prevents the owners from entering or leaving the property by Grant Avenue, aund compels them to enter and leave their property by a back entrance; that the construction of the subway substantially damaged the paint inside and outside of the dwelling house on the premises, and damaged the furnishings within the house; that the fair cash market value of the property before the construction was $3,500.00; that the fair cash market value of the property subsequent to the construction of the subway is $2,000.00 ; and that claimants suffered damages in the amount of $1,500.00.
On November -14, 1942, respondent filed answer to the complaint of Ruby Sefton Matthews, alleging that before the construction of the subway, she executed and delivered a deed to the State of Illinois dedicating a right of way for public road purposes in, over, and upon the identical property for .which she seeks damages, and alleging that by this deed of dedication claimant is barred as a matter of law from maintaining her claim. Substantially the same answer was filed to the complaint of Moneta K. Remington. Evidence was taken in both cases, and filed in this court on October 15, 1942. On December 9, 1942, respondent filed its motion to dismiss the consolidated cases, reserving its right to introduce testimony on the merits in the event the motion should be denied.
The evidence discloses that a part of the properties in question were dedicated by claimants for public use in [*196] connection with the identical public improvements which they allege to have been the cause of the damages they subsequently sustained. The evidence discloses no deviation from the plans and specifications for the improvement and construction of the subway, and discloses no misrepresentation by the respondent with reference . to the deeds of dedication. Where an owner dedicates property for public use in connection with public improvements, the law coiiclusively presumes that the consideration for the dedication is based, not only on the value of the land dedicated, but any damages sustained to contiguous land of the owners by reason of the improvement. Longden. vs. State, 12 C. C. R 129; Holtrnam. et al, vs. State, 12 C. C. R. 212; Lepski, et al, vs. State, 10 %.\C. R. 170; Siekrnamvs. State, 10 C. C. R. 286.
The motion of the respondent must therefore be granted. Cases dismissed.
(-No. 3811-Claimant awarded, $35.00.)
HENRY CLAY GOTT, Claimant, vs. STATEOP ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Opinion filed Hay 15, 1944.
Claimant, pro se.
GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; C. ARTHUR NEBEL,Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION Am-when award mav. he made for expense of medical a%d hospztal cure under. Where zn employee of the State sustains accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment, while within the protection of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, necessitating expenditures for medical and hospital dare to relieve from the effects of such injuries, an award may be made for such expenditures, where the amount therefor is just and reasonable, in accordance with the pi-ovisions of the ACI, upon compliance with the requirements thereof.
[*197] ’ 197
CHIEF JUSTICE DAMRON
delivered the opinion of the court: This claim was filed on the 25th day of September, 1943, for an award under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The record consists of the complaint, departmental report, claimant’s waiver of brief, statement and argument, stipulation that the departmental report constitutes the full record and waiver of brief, statement and argument on behalf of respondent. The departmental report states that the claimant was first employed in the office of the Secretary of State on the 14th day of February, 1938. That on August 23,1943, while in’the employment of the respondent, mid while going from one part of the room to another in the Capitol Building, at Springfield, Illinois, claimant tripped and fell, which resulted in an injury to his back and body, especially his spine and pelvis. That by reason of the injuries caused by his fall, he was absent from duty approximately ten days, but was paid regular wages during that time, and has been paid in full at the regular monthly rate for such services rendered by him from the date of his employment until the present time.
The report further states that at the time of his injuries he was drawing a monthly salary of $150.00.
Immediate notice was given to the respondent on the day of the injury. He was sent to St. John’s Hospital in Springfield, Illinois, where x-rays were made at the suggestion of Dr. H. H. Southwick, the treating physician.
The complaint seeks an award as follows: St. John’s Hospital, Springfield, Illinois. ........................ $25.00 Dr. H. H. Southwick, Springfield, Illinois. ....................... 10.00 and such other sums as may be provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
[*198] Upon a full consideration of this record, the court finds that respondent had notice of the accident on the . date it occurred, that claim for cornpensakion was made within six months, and that the claim was filed within one year after the date of the accident, meeting the jurisdictional requirements of Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Under Section 8, paragraph a of the Act, claimant is entitled to have such medical care as is reasonably required to relieve him of the effects of his injury. It appears from the record that the services claimed were necessary and that the charges hherefor were reasonable and just. The record further discloses he was not able to work for a period of ten days after said injury and ordinarily would be entitled to three days temporary compensation, but inasmuch as the record diacloses claimant was paid full salary during the period of temporary disability, this cannot be allowed.
There being no evidence in this record to sustain an award for temporary or permanent disability, any claim for such must be denied.
An award is therefore made in favor of the claimant in the total sum of $35.00, payable as follows: 1. The sum of $25.00 for the use of i3t. John’s Hospital. 2. The sum of $10.00 for the use of Dr. H. ’H. Southwick.
This award is subject to the approval of the Gov-. ernor as provided in Section 3 of “An Act! concerning the payment of compensation awards to State employees. ”