Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Department of Public Wks. & Bldgs. v. Schon

JULY 18, 1968.

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

HULDA SCHON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

JOSEPH ERNST, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



Appeals from the Circuit Court of Madison County; the Hon. AUSTIN LEWIS, Judge, presiding. Judgments reversed and causes remanded.

GOLDENHERSH, J.

Defendants appeal from the judgments of the Circuit Court of Madison County denying their petitions for the allowance of interest on certain sums of money awarded defendants in eminent domain proceedings.

Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that these cases involve questions arising under the Constitution of Illinois (Supreme Court Rule 302). The Supreme Court found that no substantial constitutional question was presented, and transferred the causes to this court. Because the cases present identical issues, they have been consolidated for opinion.

In each of the cases, petitioner filed its petition to condemn real estate owned by defendants, filed a motion for "quick take" under the provisions of section 2.1 of the Eminent Domain Act (c 47, § 2.1, Ill Rev Stats 1967), a hearing was held as provided in section 2.2, a deposit was made in accordance with section 2.3, and withdrawals were made as provided in 2.4. Upon trial, defendants were awarded sums in excess of the amounts deposited.

The controversy arises from the inability of the parties to agree on the amounts of interest to which defendants are entitled. The specific question presented is whether section 2.6 of the Eminent Domain Act provides for interest on the amount of money by which a final award exceeds the sum deposited under a "quick take" order, including therein 25% of the amount preliminarily found to be just compensation, or whether interest is payable on the amount by which a final award exceeds the amount preliminarily found to be just compensation.

[1-3] The Supreme Court has stated the rules of statutory construction here applicable, as follows:

"The cardinal rule of statutory construction, to which all other canons and rules are subordinate, is to ascertain and give effect to the true intent and meaning of the legislature in enacting the law." Electrical Contractors Ass'n of City of Chicago, Inc. v. Illinois Bldg. Authority, 33 Ill.2d 587, 591, 213 N.E.2d 761.

"In determining the intent of the legislature consideration must be given to the entire statute, its nature, objects and the consequences which would result from construing it one way or another." Carrigan v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission, 19 Ill.2d 230, 233, 166 N.E.2d 574.

". . . . words employed are to be given their plain meanings, and that the use by the legislature of certain language in one instance and wholly different language in another indicates that different results were intended." Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 31 Ill.2d 69, 100, 199 N.E.2d 769.

Section 2.3 of the "quick take" statute provides in part:

"§ 2.3. (a) If the petitioner shall deposit, with the clerk of the court, money in the amount preliminarily found by the court to be just compensation, and, in addition shall deposit with the clerk a further sum of money equal to one-fourth of such amount, . . . ."

Section 2.6 provides in part:

"§ 2.6. The petitioner shall pay, in addition to the just compensation finally adjudged in the proceeding, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum upon:

"(a) Any excess of the just compensation so finally adjudged, over the amount deposited by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3(a) of this Act, from the date on which the parties interested in the property surrendered possession of the property in accordance with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.