City of Pinckneyville v. Rhine

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Pinckneyville v. Rhine

63 Ill. App. 139, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 935

DecidedMarch 7, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 63 Ill. App. 139 (City of Pinckneyville v. Rhine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Pinckneyville v. Rhine, 63 Ill. App. 139, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 935 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Green

delivebed the opinion oe THE CoUBT.

This action was brought to recover damages caused by the construction and maintenance of the same dam as was complained of in City of Pinckneyville v. Hutchings, in which an opinion is filed at this term. The damages recovered in the case at bar were assessed by the jury at $200, for which sum and costs judgment was entered, and the city took this appeal. The same question is presented in this case as in the case above mentioned, and the same instruction is complained of. The plaintiff below had the right to recover all damages in this action to the fair market value of his land, present and prospective, necessarily resulting from the construction of said dam, and was not restricted to the recovery of those damages only which had already resulted up to the time suit was commenced.

We have said this in the opinion filed in the case mentioned, and held the instruction was not erroneous. It is not necessary to again- discuss the question presented, as we have already done so in the opinion referred to. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Green

delivebed the opinion oe THE CoUBT.

This action was brought to recover damages caused by the construction and maintenance of the same dam as was complained of in City of Pinckneyville v. Hutchings, in which an opinion is filed at this term. The damages recovered in the case at bar were assessed by the jury at $200, for which sum and costs judgment was entered, and the city took this appeal. The same question is presented in this case as in the case above mentioned, and the same instruction is complained of. The plaintiff below had the right to recover all damages in this action to the fair market value of his land, present and prospective, necessarily resulting from the construction of said dam, and was not restricted to the recovery of those damages only which had already resulted up to the time suit was commenced.

We have said this in the opinion filed in the case mentioned, and held the instruction was not erroneous. It is not necessary to again- discuss the question presented, as we have already done so in the opinion referred to. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Ill. App. 139, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-pinckneyville-v-rhine-illappct-1896.