Hutt v. City of Chicago

Decision Date29 March 1890
Citation23 N.E. 1010,132 Ill. 352
PartiesHUTT et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from superior court, Cook county; ELLIOTT ANTHONY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment confirming an assessment levied to raise the amount necessary to pay the compensation and damages awarded for property taken or damaged for the extension of South Canal street from Lumber street to Archer avenue.Wm. J. Ammen, Osborn & Lynde, Jenkins & Harkness, Rubens & Mott, and Edward Roby, (Wilson & Moore, Wm. M. Johnston, Joseph N. Barker, John W. Waughop, Mason Bros., Wm. B. Keep, and Smith & Pence, of counsel,) for appellants.

Francis Adams, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

During the trial exceptions were taken to the ruling of the court on various questions raised and decided, but, in the view we take of the record, many of the questions become unimportant,and in the decision of the case we shall confine ourselves to the consideration of such matters as we regard of controlling importance. The ordinance passed by the city council is the foundation of this proceeding. Section 1 of the ordinance provides that South Canal street shall be extended form the southerly line of Lumber street to the northerly line of Archer avenue, ‘in accordance with the plan hereto annexed.’ By this last clause of the ordinance, the plan mentioned must be regarded as a part thereof. Upon an examination of the plan annexed to the ordinance, it will be found that the extension of Canal street from Lumber street to Archer avenue requires the proposed street to cross a navigable stream,-the Chicago river. From an inspection of the plan, and from the language of the ordinance itself, it is apparent that the improvement authorized by the ordinance was one extending over and across the Chicago river, as it would be impossible to extend the street from the one opint indicated to the other without crossing the river. It will, however, be observed that in the ordinance no provision whatever was made for crossing the river. Whether the crossing should be by barge, by boat, or by some other means, the ordinance is silent. As has been seen, this proceeding was instituted to assess benefits to land-owners along the line of the proposed improvement, for the purpose of paying for the land condemned, which was taken for the street sought to be opened; and the main question presented by the record is whether the theory upon which the case was tried, and the benefits were assessed to property owners, was correct or incorrect. The commissioners who were appointed to assess benefits to property owners made the assessment on the theory that a bridge would be constructed by the city across the river, and all the witnesses called by the city to sustain the assessment predicated their judgment of benefits to property upon the hypothesis that a bridge would be constructed across the river, as shown by their evidence. F. C. Vierling says that ‘the benefits that I have testified to here all depend upon the erection of a bridge.’ E. C. Huling: ‘I base the benefits largely from the fact that a bridge would be built.’ John Wain bases his ideas of benefits on the expectation of the street being opened all the way by a bridge. E. A. Cummings states that his testimony is based on the expectation that a bridge will be built across the river. John C. McCord states that, in order to make the benefit appreciable, there will have to be a bridge. William Kasper says: ‘A bridge is necessary to this improvement. If there is no bridge there will be no benefit.’ The witnesses called by the objectors agree with those introduced on behalf of the city, that the improvement made by the proposed extension of the street will be of no benefit to the land-owners assessed, unless a bridge should be constructed across the river. Indeed, upon this point there was no substantial conflict or disagreement in the evidence. Not only in the admission of evidence, but in the instructions, the theory seemed to be adopted that the erection of a bridge in the future might be considered in estimating benefits.

Among other instructions, the appellants asked...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • McGhee v. Walsh
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1913
    ... ... McGHEE et al., Appellants, v. MICHAEL WALSH, COMMERCE TRUST COMPANY and KANSAS CITY Supreme Court of Missouri April 8, 1913 ...           Appeal ... from Jackson Circuit ... Hungerford v. Hartford, ... 39 Conn. 279; Clapp v. Hartford, 35 Conn. 66; ... Chicago v. Adcock, 168 Ill. 221; Appeal of Wheeler, ... 80 N.Y.S. 204. And ordinarily means the land ... & Tr. Co. v. Chicago, 162 Ill. 505; Vreeland v ... Mayor, 58 N.J.L. 126; Hutt v. Chicago, 132 Ill ... 352; Edwards v. Chicago, 140 Ill. 440; Clark v ... Chicago, 214 ... ...
  • Kansas City v. Woerishoeffer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1913
    ...Kansas City v. Railroad, 230 Mo. 369; Railroad v. Slingerland, 101 Minn. 488; Ice Co. v. Chicago, 147 Ill. 327; Hutt v. Chicago, 132 Ill. 352. (3) Ordinance 8316, upon which this proceeding is based, is void for the reason that it fails to recite section 17 of article 6 of the charter. Said......
  • In re Proceedings to Open and Widen Oak Street
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1925
    ...about the assessment of benefits is just as wrong as speculation as to assessment of damages. Both are condemned by the law. Hutt v. Chicago, 132 Ill. 352; Ice Co. v. City, 147 Ill. 327; Hook Railroad, 133 Mo. 322; Isom v. Railroad, 36 Miss. 312; Railroad v. Blackshire, 10 Kan. 488; Railroa......
  • Kansas City v. Woerishoeffer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1913
    ...or was not shown to be able to build. This we declined to do. The judgment in that case is well buttressed by authority (Hutt v. Chicago, 132 Ill. 352, 23 N. E. 1010; City of Waukegan v. Burnett, 234 Ill. 460, 84 N. E. 1061; Isom v. Railway Co., 36 Miss. 312), and we stand by its doctrine a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT