Cooney v. Town of Hartland

Mary Cooney v. The Town of Hartland

Cooney v. Town of Hartland, 95 Ill. 516 (1880)

Court: Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: June 16, 1880
Judges: Dickey
Citations: 95 Ill. 5161880 Ill. LEXIS 206

Syllabus

Towns—not liable for torts of commissioners of highways. A town is not liable to an action for the unlawful conduct of its commissioners of highways in diverting from its natural course a stream of water in the construction or improvement of a public highway, whereby the water is caused to flow upon the land of another. If the commissioners, in doing a lawful act, seize private property without lawful right, or injure the same unlawfully, the tort is that of the man or. men who do the unlawful act, and is not that of such a corporation.

Summary

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District; the Hon. Nathaniel J. Pillsbttby, presiding Justice, and Hon." Joseph Sibley and Hon. Edwin S. Leland, Justices, —heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry county, the Hon. Hiram H. Cody, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dickey

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Dickey delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an action by appellants against the town, seeking damages for injury to the lands of appellants, alleged to have been caused by the unlawful conduct of the highway commissioners of the town in diverting (in the construction or improvement of a public highway) from its natural course a stream of water, whereby it was caused to flow upon the lands of appellants.

It is insisted by appellants that a distinction should be taken in such cases between acts of omission and acts of commission; that in the case of Town of Waltham v. Kemper, 55 Ill. 348 , this court passed only upon a case of a neglect to perform an affirmative act, and while holding that such corporations are not liable for a failure to repair a bridge, the court did not hold that towns are not responsible for affirmative acts of tort done in its behalf by its officers.

The suggestion is plausible rather than substantial. The town may construct a road lawfully by its commissioners of highways, but if the commissioners seize private property without lawful right, or injure the same unlawfully, the tort is that of the man or men who do the unlawful act, whether they be public officers or not, and can not be regarded properly as the act of such a corporation.

The judgment in this case must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Peters v. Union Gap Irrigation District167 P. 1085 (Wash. 1917)
Hennigs v. Centreville Township306 N.E.2d 287 (Ill. 1974)
Chase v. Middleton82 N.W. 612 (Mich. 1900)
Dinwiddie v. Siefkin20 N.E.2d 130 (Ill. App. Ct. 1939)
State Bank of Chicago v. State1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 158 (1898)
Belt v. State1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 266 (1902)

Most recent

Hennigs v. Centreville Township306 N.E.2d 287 (Ill. 1974)
Dinwiddie v. Siefkin20 N.E.2d 130 (Ill. App. Ct. 1939)
Nafziger v. State8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 314 (1934)
Johnson v. State8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 67 (1934)
Connole v. State7 Ill. Ct. Cl. 232 (1933)
Kershaw v. State6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 387 (1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list