Thompson v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 19 June 1902 |
| Citation | 197 Ill. 599,64 N.E. 392 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook county court; O. N. Carter, Judge.
Special assessment proceedings by the city of Chicago against William Hale Thompson for paving improvements. From the judgment confirming the assessment, the defendant appeals. Reversed.
F. W. Becker, for appellant.
Robert Redfield (Charles M. Walker, Corp. Counsel, Edgar Bronson Tolman, and William M. Pindell, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cook county to reverse a judgment of confirmation in a special assessment proceeding for paving West Van Buren street from South Paulina street to South Kinzie avenue, in the city of Chicago, Thirty-seven objections to the confirmation of the assessment were filed in the court below, all of which were overruled. The last of these objections was: ‘The provision of the ordinance and the estimate relating to costs were superseded by the act of 1901, and the same is invalid.’ In the argument of counsel for the appellant it was insisted that the court erred in overruling four of five of the objections; among others the last. That objection should have been sustained. Gage v. City of Chicago, 195 Ill. 490, 63 N. E. 184.It is urged on behalf of the appellee that, notwithstanding this result, the cause should be remanded, with directions to the county court to eliminate the item of costs and enter a proper judgment; and it is said such a course was pursued in Dobler v. Village of Warren, 174 Ill. 92, 50 N. E. 1048. This is a misapprehension. In that case the reversal was because of the erroneous judgment against the objectors for the costs arising upon the hearing on the objections filed. Here the item of $4,216.98, ‘cost of making the assessment,’ entered into the estimate of the cost of the improvement, and by the amount of that item the assessment was spread for too much. Manifestly, the court cannot, of its own motion, strike out that item and enter a proper judgment without a new assessment. It is also urged that the ordinance is uncertain as to the grade of the finished pavement, and as to the number of flat stones to be used under each curbstone, and that only five days' notice of the public hearing was given. This last objection was disposed of in the case of Field v. City of Chicago, 64 N. E.--.1 We think the improvement is sufficiently described in the ordinance.
For the reasons stated,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rehm v. Halverson
... ... 57 Grand avenue, in the city of Chicago. On the same day the defendant prayed an appeal, and his appeal bond was filed in the ... Shunick v. Thompson, 25 Ill. App. 619;Barrett v. Lingle, 33 Ill. App. 91.5. It is claimed that the circuit court erred ... ...
-
Thompson v. People ex rel. Hanberg
...objections. The validity of the judgment confirming the original assessment was before this court at a former term (Thompson v. City of Chicago, 197 Ill. 599, 64 N. E. 392), when the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded. It is first contended that the judgment of confirmation upon ......
-
Lanphere v. City of Chicago
...shall be paid by cities out of their general funds; and in Gage v. City of Chicago, 195 Ill. 490, 63 N. E. 184, and Thompson v. City of Chicago, 197 Ill. 599, 64 N. E. 392, it was held that, since the amendment of 1901, it was error to include in the confirmation judgment the cost of making......
-
McChesney v. City of Chicago
...collecting the assessment. Gave v. City of Chicago, 195 Ill. 490, 63 N. E. 184. Appellants rely upon the decision in Thompson v. City of Chicago, 197 Ill. 599, 64 N. E. 392, where it was urged by the city that we should remand the cause with directions to the county court to strike out the ......