City of Edwardsville v. Cent. Union Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 14417.,14417. |
| Citation | 134 N.E. 716,302 Ill. 362 |
| Parties | CITY OF EDWARDSVILLE v. CENTRAL UNION TELEPHONE CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by the City of Edwardsville against the Central Union Telephone Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which transferred cause to Supreme Court.
Case retransferred to Appellate Court.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; J. F. Gillham, judge.
Cutting, Moore & Sidley, of Chicago, and Charles W. Terry and Charles E. Gueltig, both of Edwardsville, for appellant.
George A. Lytle, City Atty., of Edwardsville, for appellee.
The city of Edwardsville recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Madison county in an action of debt against the Central Union Telephone Company for $3,000. The action was for compensation for the use of portions of the streets, alleys, and sidewalks of the city occupied by the poles of appellant, and was based upon an ordinance of the city which provided that any person, firm, or corporation owning, controlling, or occupying any post or pole over eight feet high, which occupied any portion of any street, alley, or sidewalk within the city, such post or pole being used to support electric or other wires of whatsoever nature, should pay annually into the treasury of said city the sum of 50 cents for each pole or post so owned, controlled, or occupied, as compensation to said city for the use of the portion or portions of the street, alley, or sidewalk which said pole or post occupied. To the declaration in debt filed by appellee, appellant filed a plea of general issue and four special pleas. The principal defenses relied upon were, first, that appellant was not subject to the compensation ordinance, because of the terms of an ordinance of July 5, 1882, granting to the assignors of appellant the right to construct, maintain, and operate a telephone system in the city of Edwardsville; and, second, that the compensation ordinance was invalid because it contravened certain provisions of the federal Constitution and of the state Constitution. Certain propositions of law setting up these defenses were refused by the trial court. Appellant prayed and perfected its appeal from the judgment of the circuit court to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District. Briefs were filed by both parties, and the cause was taken under advisement by the Appellate Court. On some ground not appearing in the order of transmission, the Appellate Court found that it had no jurisdiction of the case, and transferred it to this court.
[1][2] Cases involving a judgment in debt, based on ordinances of the character of the compensation ordinance involved in this case, have been before this court in City of Springfield v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. 253 Ill. 346, 97 N. E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Shedd v. Patterson
-
Central Union Telephone Co v. City of Edwardsville, 37
...to the Supreme Court of Illinois, on the ground that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction of it. The City of Edwardsville v. Central Union Telephone Co., 302 Ill. 362, 134 N. E. 716. The Supreme Court held that, as the appeal had been taken to the Appellate Court and errors assigned whic......
-
Smith v. Condo, 35590
... ... Cf. City of Edwardsville v ... Central Union Telephone Co., 302 ... ...
- City of Edwardsville v. Cent. Union Tel. Co.