by interruption to their business, and so far as we are able to discover from the evidence these amounts were sufficient to cover all damages properly allowable caused by such interruption of business, whether viewed as a loss of profits, on the theory outlined by counsel for petitioner in their opening statement, or otherwise. The items $7000 to the Siegels and $400 to Baum for rent of other premises were equally improper to be allowed. The Siegels were allowed $67,330 and Baum $1000 for their respective leasehold interests, and the court required the owner of the building condemned to release, and he did release, these parties from the payment of all rent which would accrue against them under their leases from and after July 1, 1894, so that after that date they were not required to pay any rent, although they did not deliver up the possession of the premises until the compensation allowed to them was paid. Ferdinand Siegel, one of the appellees, testified that, assuming a building to be prepared for general renting purposes in the wholesale district, as ordinarily found there for rent, it would take from four to six weeks to fit it up to receive their plant, fixtures, stock and force. It does not appear that they would be, or were, compelled to move within that time after July 1, hence they could suffer no damages in this regard. Even if these items were to be treated as a part of the expenses of removal in view of the theory adopted on the trial, there is not sufficient evidence in the record to show that these appellees would be, or were, compelled to pay any such rent while they were also paying rent for the premises condemned. In no view of the case could appellant be required to pay full value for the premises taken and to furnish appellees at the same time other premises besides. Nor can we, from the evidence, sustain the finding of the trial court in allowing $1500 to the Siegels for the cost of taking down and putting up, and for damage to, the sprinkling apparatus which they had in use in the premises condemned. The evidence showed that it could not be taken down and put up elsewhere to any advantage whatever. This was undisputed. It was a permanent attachment to the building, and its only value to the Siegels was its use while they occupied the building to which it was attached. The value of its use for the remainder of the term was, or at least should have been, included in the value of the leasehold. We must presume it was so included. There are other items allowed, of considerable amounts, which counsel insist have no place in a judgment of this character; but from the view we have taken of the case they may properly be classified under one or more of the general heads embraced in the theory adopted by the parties in the trial of the cause, and which, whether technically allowable or not in the form in which they were allowed, common justice required should be allowed in some form, to the end that appellees' property may not be taken or damaged without just compensation. This reasonable view taken by counsel for the petitioner on the trial cannot now properly, on the request of the petitioner, though preferred by other counsel, be disregarded. But it is insisted strenuously, and not without force, that the amounts allowed by the court exceed the damages actually sustained by appellees, as shown by the evidence. In view of the fact, however, that in addition to hearing the evidence in open court the trial judge examined the property in question and other property concerning the rentals of which evidence was heard, and otherwise informed himself, as he was requested and authorized to do by the parties, great weight should be given to his conclusions. Here were large manufacturing establishments sought to be taken or damaged by the petitioner at the busiest season of the year. They were equipped with costly and complicated machinery and stocked with large quantities of material found to be in the many different stages through which it must pass in the process of manufacture. The public needs were such that the private interests of the owners must be yielded up, and that, too, with but little delay. It was probably a case, and it was evidently so regarded by the parties in view of their stipulation and statements contained in the record, where the judgment of the trial judge as to questions of fact, after having heard the evidence and made the examinations and inquiries contemplated by the parties, should be regarded as all but conclusive. In Hercules Iron Works v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Co. 141 Ill. 491, we said, that "in all such cases it has always been held that the finding should be clearly and palpably against the weight of the evidence, to justify an Appellate Court to interfere with the finding of fact." (See, also, Chicago and Iowa Railroad Co. v. Hopkins, 90 Ill. 316; Chicago and Evanston Railroad Co. v. Jacobs, 110 id. 414; Ward v. Railroad Co. 119 id. 287; Chicago and Evanston Railroad Co. v. Blake, 116 id. 163; Chicago, etc. Railroad Co. v. Catholic Bishop, 119 id. 525; Sanitary District v. Cullerton, 147 id. 385.) As to some of the items allowed the amounts appear to us to be large, but not so clearly excessive as to justify a reversal on that ground. The judgment will be affirmed as to the appellees the Safeguard Account Company and the American Printing and Binding Company, and upon remittiturs being entered herein at or before the June term, 1896, of this court by said Siegel Brothers of $20,500, by said Baum of $2000 and by said Rubel Brothers of $500, (which several amounts are the aggregates of the respective items above mentioned as having been improperly allowed,) said judgment as to the balance so allowed to them, respectively, by the circuit court will be affirmed, otherwise said judgment as to them will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Judgment accordingly.* *The several remittiturs mentioned above having been entered at the June term, 1896, the judgment in the cause was affirmed. INDEX. ABSTRACT OF RECORD. PAGE. on appeal, errors must appear in the abstract of the record 47 ACCIDENT INSURANCE.-See INSURANCE. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. ... .... 47 effect of payment of disputed claim by check reciting it to when an account is not deemed liquidated.. ACCRETIONS. belong to riparian owner.. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 339 339 377 of plat before circuit clerk is not sufficient, in dedication.. 210 ACTION. no concern of defendant who is named as usee in suit 85 417 523 ADVERSE POSSESSION. under decree of partition is an ouster-when prescription 76 suit to annul partition-effect on adverse possession there- 76 herding cattle and cutting hay on vacant land are not ad- 351 to constitute a bar to right of entry.. 76 against city-non-user of street-effect 210 seven years, with payment of taxes-effect of break of two AGREEMENTS.-See CONTRACTS. PAGE. construction of contractor's agreement to keep pavement contracts of partners changing their agreement-equitable ALTERATIONS. 16 201 in insured property under permission do not avoid policy.. 9 AMENDMENT. of charter of corporation as affecting assessment for taxa- 101 of assessment of bridge-mistake of assessor as to location 132 of certificate of levy by inserting dollar-mark.. 132 of pleadings upon trial-when not error...... 409 436 ANSWER. in chancery-unsworn answer may be excepted to under the statute. waiving oath to, in chancery... 379 . 379 APPEALS AND ERRORS. when verdict in condemnation will not be disturbed ... effect of failing to stand by overruled demurrer. sufficiency of pleadings on appeal.... variance cannot be first urged on appeal............. administrator's petition to sell land to pay debts does not 22 22 114 47 47 31 31 21 210 155 191 involve freehold...... 186 when failure properly to swear jury will not reverse. 124 124 281 282 |