university of illinois - UIHistories Project

1958] UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 1271
future condemnation suits in which leasehold interests were and might be involved,
it was deemed important to challenge these rulings, and attempt to secure the
adoption of the University's contentions with respect to them, by filing a post-trial
motion. Accordingly, a motion for new trial, predicated primarily upon said
rulings, was filed and argued.
The motion for new trial was denied by the trial judge on May 8, 1958,
and the University should either take an appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois
in the suit or should pay the amounts awarded by the jury to the defendants and
thus acquire title to the property. The trial judge has informed counsel for the
University, unofficially and off the record, that he is now of the opinion that he
probably erred in making some of the rulings challenged by the University's
motion, but that he denied the motion because he feels that the awards made by
the jury in its verdict are amply justified by the evidence and it is unlikely that
a new trial would result in a substantially different verdict. Counsel for the University
believe that, if an appeal would be taken from the verdict of the jury and
the judgment entered thereon, the Supreme Court will hold that the above mentioned
rulings of the trial judge during the trial were erroneous and will probably
grant a new trial to the University because of them. However, the cost of
prosecuting an appeal to the Supreme Court and of again trying the case if the
present judgment would be reversed and the case would be remanded to the trial
court for a new trial, would probably be at least $4,500, and it is unlikely, therefore,
that any substantial saving to the University would result from following this
procedure. Counsel for the University believe that, in the event it becomes
necessary to try another condemnation suit instituted by the University in which
substantially the same issues and questions will be involved and presented, the
erroneous rulings made at the trial of the instant suit will not be considered to
constitute precedents and will probably not'be followed. Consequently, they do
not regard it necessary to take an appeal to the Supreme Court in this case
in order to prevent the rulings made at the trial which they believe erroneous
from constituting precedents in the trial of future cases involving the same
questions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Legal Counsel, the Director of the Physical
Plant Department, and the Vice-President and Comptroller recommend that the
University abide by the judgment entered upon the verdict in this suit and that
the property be acquired by the payment to the defendants of the amounts awarded
them by the jury in its verdict for their respective interests in the property.
I concur.
On motion of Mr. Johnston, this recommendation was approved and
the purchase of the property at the price fixed by the verdict was
authorized. This action was taken by the following vote: Aye, Mr.
Bissell, Mr. Herrick, Mrs. Holt, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Johnston, Mr.
Livingston, Mr. Nickell, Mr. Swain, Mrs. Watkins, Mr. Williamson;
no, none; absent, Mr. Stratton.
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 1102 WEST ILLINOIS
STREET. URBANA
(32) The Board of Trustees has authorized the institution of proceedings in
eminent domain for the acquisition of the property at 1102 West Illinois Street,
needed as part of the site for the construction of Men's Residence Halls. The
action of the Board was based on (a) the reluctance of the owner, Miss Ruth
Linton, to sell the property because it is part of her late father's estate and she is
entitled, under the provisions of his will, to occupy the residence on it rent free
for the rest of her life; and (b) the unwillingness of Havana National Bank, as
trustee of the estate, to approve the sale of this property except at a price which
University officials deemed excessive and could not recommend.
Recently the Trustee has secured an appraisal which is in line with University
a Ppraisals and has agreed to recommend to the court the sale of the property. It
a 'so appears that the owner is now willing to sell. Although negotiations have
not been completed, the Director of the Physical Plant Department and the Vicepresident
and Comptroller recommend the purchase of this property at a price
n °t to exceed $32,000, which is within University appraisals of the property.