Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Fenstermaker

Appellate Court of Illinois

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Fenstermaker

134 Ill. App. 232, 1907 Ill. App. LEXIS 353

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided June 1, 1907·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellee is the .owner of lots No. 135 and 136 in the Car Shops addition to the city of Jacksonville, improved with a dwelling house, outhouses, fruit trees and grape vines. He recovered a verdict and judgment against appellants for $200, for damages resulting to his property by reason of the construction and operation of a railroad. The record in this case is substantially identical with the record in the case in which Anton J. DeFreitas recovered a judgment against the' same defendants for $350, for damages to real estate similarly situated with reference to the same railroad, in which case an opinion is this day filed in this court. (Ante, p. 228.)

The first instruction given at the request of appellee in the case at bar is the same instruction which is criticized in the opinion in the DeFreitas case, and for the reasons stated in that opinion a like conclusion is arrived at in this case.

If appellee will, within 20 days, remit $50 from the amount of Ms judgment it will be affirmed for-$150, otherwise the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Affirmed upon remittitur. Remittitur filed and judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellee is the .owner of lots No. 135 and 136 in the Car Shops addition to the city of Jacksonville, improved with a dwelling house, outhouses, fruit trees and grape vines. He recovered a verdict and judgment against appellants for $200, for damages resulting to his property by reason of the construction and operation of a railroad. The record in this case is substantially identical with the record in the case in which Anton J. DeFreitas recovered a judgment against the' same defendants for $350, for damages to real estate similarly situated with reference to the same railroad, in which case an opinion is this day filed in this court. (Ante, p. 228.)

The first instruction given at the request of appellee in the case at bar is the same instruction which is criticized in the opinion in the DeFreitas case, and for the reasons stated in that opinion a like conclusion is arrived at in this case.

If appellee will, within 20 days, remit $50 from the amount of Ms judgment it will be affirmed for-$150, otherwise the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Affirmed upon remittitur. Remittitur filed and judgment affirmed.

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Fenstermaker, 134 Ill. App. 232, 1907 Ill. App. LEXIS 353 (Ill. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

134 Ill. App. 232 (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Fenstermaker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.