Murphy v. City of Chicago

29 Ill. 279
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 29 Ill. 279 (Murphy v. City of Chicago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murphy v. City of Chicago, 29 Ill. 279 (Ill. 1862).

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

After all, the whole of this case is resolved into this simple inquiry, whether the Common Council has exceeded its legitimate authority, in allowing the railroad track to be laid in Water street, and in raising the grade of Randolph street so as to pass over Water street. If it has not, the law is too well settled to admit of dispute at this day, that the city is not liable for damages resulting from the exercise of such lawful authority.

We have no doubt that the habendum clause of the deed, by which the plaintiff conveyed a portion of Water street to the city, for the purposes of a street, and none other, restricts the use of the premises to that of a street alone. But they have no right to use any of the other streets of the city, for purposes other than those of streets. Their power over this, is the same as over any other street—neither more nor less. Then the question recurs, what is the legitimate use of the street by the Common Council? That too, is well settled. It is the settled law of this court, as well as in most of the other States of this Union, that it is a legitimate use of a street or highway, to allow a railroad track to be laid down in it, and for doing so, the city is not liable for any damages which may accrue to individuals. Cases are constantly occurring where individuals are incommoded, and thus really damaged, in this way, for which the law can afford no remedy. Sometimes portions of a street are occupied by building materials, to the great inconvenience of a neighbor, but he must submit to it from necessity, and without compensation.

So, too, of the complaint that the grade of Randolph street has been raised at the crossing of Water street, so as to preclude passage from one to the other except by a flight of stairs. The grade of streets is within the exclusive control of the Common Council, and the law is well settled that individuals who are discommoded thereby, must submit, without compensation, to such improvements for the general good. The grade of the streets in a large portion of this very city, has been so raised as to compel proprietors to raise their buildings at a very great expense; but we have decided following a rule well settled elsewhere, that the city may do this without compensation to the owners of property upon the street. It seems to us that all the principles involved in this case, have been long and well settled, and we can have no difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at but one conclusion, without overturning principles of law long settled and well established.

We must affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Luxford v. City & County of Denver
65 Colo. 355 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1918)
Cushman Motor Works v. City of Lincoln
150 N.W. 821 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1915)
McKay v. City of Enid
1910 OK 143 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Walther v. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad
117 Ill. App. 364 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Summerfield v. City of Chicago
64 N.E. 490 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Brand v. Multnomah County
60 P. 390 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1900)
Pennsylvania Co. v. City of Chicago
53 L.R.A. 223 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
Blodgett v. Northwestern El. R.
80 F. 601 (Seventh Circuit, 1897)
Bond v. Pennsylvania Co.
69 Ill. App. 507 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1897)
Doane v. Lake Street Elevated Railroad
36 L.R.A. 97 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1896)
Parke v. City of Seattle
31 P. 310 (Washington Supreme Court, 1892)
State v. . Wilson
12 S.E. 320 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
City Council of Montgomery v. Maddox
89 Ala. 181 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1889)
Portland & Willamette Valley R. R. v. City of Portland
12 P. 265 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1886)
In re the New York Elevated Railroad
43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 427 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
People ex rel. Bransom v. Walsh
96 Ill. 232 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)
Grand Rapids & Indiana R. R. v. Heisel
38 Mich. 62 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
City of Chicago v. Rumsey
87 Ill. 348 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1877)
Perry v. New Orleans, Mobile & Chattanooga Railroad
55 Ala. 413 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Ill. 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-city-of-chicago-ill-1862.