Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1958 [PAGE 1274]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

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 n o t ' b e 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 1 1 0 2 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. T h e 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.