Town of Lake v. Bok

Appellate Court of Illinois

Town of Lake v. Bok

33 Ill. App. 45, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 448

DecidedApril 17, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Ill. App. 45 (Town of Lake v. Bok) 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

Town of Lake v. Bok, 33 Ill. App. 45, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 448 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary, J.

This is an action by the appellee against the town for obstructing the flow of surface water from his land, by raising a street. This is a cause of action in this State, though great differences of opinion on the subject exist elsewhere. Gormley v. Sanford, 52 Ill. 158; Gillliam v. Madison R. R. Co., 49 Ill. 484; Angell on Watercourses, Sec. 108 et seq. The fact whether the land of appellee was affected,as he claimed, was settled by the verdict of the jury, upon conflicting evidence, in his favor.

There is in the case an erroneous instruction as to the measure of damages, which seems to have arisen by mere inadvertence, using “ and ” in place of “ or,"’ by which the jury are permitted to give to the appellee the cost of getting his crop to the state it was in, and the value of it as it was, instead of giving one or the other. But this instruction did no harm. If he was entitled to recover at all, no computation, based upon the testimony, could make his damages less than nearly or quite double all he has recovered. The judgment can not be disturbed. East St. Louis v. Flynn, 19 Ill. App. 64.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gary, J.

This is an action by the appellee against the town for obstructing the flow of surface water from his land, by raising a street. This is a cause of action in this State, though great differences of opinion on the subject exist elsewhere. Gormley v. Sanford, 52 Ill. 158; Gillliam v. Madison R. R. Co., 49 Ill. 484; Angell on Watercourses, Sec. 108 et seq. The fact whether the land of appellee was affected,as he claimed, was settled by the verdict of the jury, upon conflicting evidence, in his favor.

There is in the case an erroneous instruction as to the measure of damages, which seems to have arisen by mere inadvertence, using “ and ” in place of “ or,"’ by which the jury are permitted to give to the appellee the cost of getting his crop to the state it was in, and the value of it as it was, instead of giving one or the other. But this instruction did no harm. If he was entitled to recover at all, no computation, based upon the testimony, could make his damages less than nearly or quite double all he has recovered. The judgment can not be disturbed. East St. Louis v. Flynn, 19 Ill. App. 64.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ill. App. 45, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-lake-v-bok-illappct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack