Yenerich v. State

8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 748, 1935 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 270
CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois
DecidedJune 1, 1935
DocketNos. 1948, 1950, consolidated
StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 748 (Yenerich v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Yenerich v. State, 8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 748, 1935 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 270 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1935).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Hollerich

delivered the opinion of the court:

The above named claimants have filed their respective claims herein for the recovery of damages which they claim to have sustained as the result of the construction by the respondent of S. B. I. Route 70 along the west side of certain land owned by the claimants Roy 0. Yenerich, Wesley Yenerich, Lester Yenerich, and Ver da Yenerich. All claimants are represented by the same counsel, and by agreement of all parties concerned, the cases have been consolidated for the purpose of this hearing.

The claimants in No. 1948, Roy 0. Yenerich, Wesley Yenerich, Lester Yenerich, and Ver da Yenerich, are the owners in fee of the West Half (W%) of the Southwest Quarter (SWVt) of Section Nine (9), Township Thirty-six (36) North Range One (1) East of the Third (3d) Principal Meridian, in LaSalle County, Illinois.

Claimant in No. 1950, George Beetz, is the owner of the East Half (E%) of the Southwest Quarter (SW%) of said Section Nine (9), being an eighty-acre tract lying adjacent to and immediately east of the Yenerich tract.

Prior to the 13th day of April, A. D. 1928, the physical conditions surrounding the aforementioned tracts of land, briefly stated, were as follows:

An unpaved public highway extended in a northerly and southerly direction along the west side of the Yenerich tract, and an unpaved public highway extended in an easterly and westerly direction along the south side of both tracts.

There was an open ditch on the east side of the public highway just west of the west fence line of the. Yenerich tract, which ditch turned to the east at the southwest corner of said tract and extended in an easterly direction along the north side of the aforementioned east and west road, about two hundred fifty (250) feet, thence southerly across such east and west road, thence in a southerly and southwesterly direetion through the land known as the Hagerty farm, and on to the land known as the G-uilfoyle farm.

The surface of both of the aforementioned tracts was low and quite level, but there was a slight fall to the west and southwest. The natural drainage was to the open ditch on the west side of the Yenerich tract. Both of above tracts were tile-drained; — the Beetz tract drained into and connected with the tiles on the Yenerich tract, which tiles extended in a westerly or southwesterly direction to, and (with the exception of the west two or three strings) drained into, the aforementioned open ditch on the west side of the Yenerich tract.

The drainage by way of the aforementioned open ditch on the west side of the Yenerich tract was supplemented by a 24-inch tile commencing at the southwest corner of the Yenerich tract and extending southerly under the east and west road, along the east side of the north and south road for a distance of about nine hundred (900) feet, thence southwesterly across said east and west road, and joined the natural ditch previously referred to, on the G-uilfoyle farm. Such line of 24-inch tile was approximately 1,224 feet in length and was constructed some thirty or thirty-five years ago by the township and a previous owner, for the purpose of draining a sort of slough that existed there. There was a drop box or catch basin at the inlet of said 24-inch tile, and the mouth of the tile was covered by a steel grating. Concrete retaining walls were constructed around the mouth of the tile and extended therefrom both in an easterly and in a westerly direction.

The tile drainage on the Yenerich tract consisted of a string of 10-inch tile at the north end of said tract, and about eight strings of 6-inch tile at varying distances between the 10-inch tile and the south boundary line of the tract. Two or three of the most southerly lines of 6-inch tile drained into the drop box or catch basin at the intake of the 24-inch tile, and the remainder of the 6-inch tile as well as the 10-inch tile, drained into the open ditch along the west side of the Yenerich tract.

In 1928 S. B. I. Route 70 was constructed from Mendota to Rochelle, over the right-of-way of the aforementioned public highway extending northerly and southerly along the west line of the Yenerich tract. Construction work on such route was commenced on April 13th, 1928 and the same was completed and accepted by the Division of Highways on April 25,1929. In the construction of said S. B. I. Route 70, a tract of land approximately forty-six feet in width and 1,200 feet in length along the west side of the Yenerich tract, containing approximately 1.77 acres, was taken and used by the respondent as a borrow pit from which soil was removed for use in making fills. The bottom of this borrow pit was about a foot lower than the open ditch it replaced, and in the removal of soil from said borrow pit, each and every string of tile which drained into the former open ditch or into the catch basin was dug up.

The owners of the Yenerich tract contend that they are entitled to be compensated for 1.77 acres of land taken for a borrow pit; also for the value of a fence which was in existence along the west line of the property prior to the construction of S. B. I. Route 70 and which was not there after the improvement was completed; also that they are entitled to damages for depreciation in value of their lands which they claim has resulted from interference with the drainage system by reason of the construction of the improvement in question.

The owners of the Beetz tract contend that their property has depreciated in value as the result of the construction of S. B. I. Route 70, by reason of the interference with the drainage tile on the Yenerich tract, and that they are entitled to be compensated for the damages so sustained.

There is considerable discrepancy in the testimony as to the comparative efficiency of the tile system prior to and since the construction of S. B. I. Route 70, as well as to the extent to which such drainage system was interfered with, by the construction of such highway.

Claimants produced testimony to show that prior to the construction of S. B. I. Route 70 the field tile were in good working order, the water drained off properly, and the land raised good crops; that the 2'4-inch tile was in satisfactory working order and functioned properly; that the respondent in driving its heavy machinery over the 24-inch tile in the work of constructing S. B. I. Route 70, broke a number of such tile; that large sink holes afterwards appeared at the places where such breaks occurred, and that such tile thereby became obstructed; that respondent removed the steel grating from the mouth of such 24-inch tile; that as the result thereof weeds and other debris were carried into such tile and helped to obstruct the same; that the obstruction of the 24-inch tile also interfered with the efficient operation of the smaller tile; also that the respondent damaged a large number of the smaller tile by driving its tractors over them; interfered with the entire drainage system by the construction of the borrow pit and the removal of all drain tile therefrom; that by reason of such interference water does not run off the premises as it previously did; that the outlets of the tile which drained into the borrow pit, as well as the outlet of the 24-inch tile are now clogged up, and that the land has become sour and does not raise as large crops as it previously did.

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

Related

Department of Public Works & Buildings v. McBride
170 N.E. 295 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1930)
Brand v. Union Elevated Railroad
258 Ill. 133 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1913)
Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Caldwell
133 N.E. 642 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 748, 1935 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yenerich-v-state-ilclaimsct-1935.