Allen v. Munn

Decision Date30 September 1870
Citation55 Ill. 486,1870 WL 6457
PartiesTHOMAS ALLEN et al.v.IRA Y. MUNN et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Superior Court of Chicago.

The opinion states the case.

Mr. J. S. PAGE, for the plaintiff in error. Messrs. SCAMMON, MCCAGG & FULLER, for the defendants in error.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This litigation has arisen upon the following facts:

Lot 1, block 13, in the original town of Chicago, is situated on a quarter section of land granted by the general government to the State, and was a part of the canal lands. In 1837, the canal commissioners surveyed the quarter section into blocks and lots, and duly acknowledged and recorded their plat. All the streets were expressly declared upon the plat to be eighty feet in width. Block 13 fronted on the east upon Canal street, which, at this place, was bordered by the Chicago river, as indicated upon the plat, no line being drawn upon the river side of the street. In fact, however, there was a greater or less space, varying according to the meanderings of the river, between Canal street, with a width of eighty feet, and the river. This space had, in 1835, been laid out by the trustees of the town of Chicago, into water lots, and their plat had been recorded, though by what authority this was done does not appear in this record, and we are not informed. The State itself, however, which owned this property, had, in 1835, given to the trustees the power to lease the wharfing privileges of the town, reserving to the owners of lots fronting on the river the preference.

In 1845, one Isaac Cook bought from the State lot 1, block 13, and received a patent therefor. In 1847, he conveyed to William Allen, the father of the complainants in this record, and to one Quigly, a part of said lot, by metes and bounds, fronting twenty feet on Canal street. Quigly's interest subsequently passed to Allen.

In 1850, said Isaac Cook conveyed to one Richmond his interest in the land lying between the east line of lot 1 and the middle of the river, described in the deed as the wharfing privilege. In 1852, Richmond conveyed to one Chapin, and in 1855, Chapin sold and conveyed the same to the defendant, Munn, for a consideration of $16,000, which was paid.

On the twenty-seventh of February, 1847, the legislature passed an act, reciting that there were various claims to these wharfing privileges, and granting to the common council the power to vacate so much of certain streets bordering on the river, as might lie outside the width of eighty feet, to adjust all disputes between the city and others in regard to the wharfing privileges, and to make such agreements and conveyances as they might think proper, reserving, however, the rights of the State and the canal trustees. On the eleventh of February, 1853, the legislature passed another act of the same general purport, but giving the city the power to make conveyances of the wharfing privileges to such persons as it might think entitled to the same, without any reservation of rights to the State or the canal trustees. On the tenth of December, 1855, the common council passed an ordinance, providing for the vacating of so much of the street as bordered the river outside the width of eighty feet, upon being paid or secured certain sums assessed upon each lot. The sum assessed upon lot 1, in block 13, was $3252, of which the sum of $821 would belong to the twenty feet, above mentioned, as conveyed to Allen. The ordinance does not, in terms, provide for a conveyance by the city, upon being paid or secured the assessments, but it is claimed by counsel that such was the purpose, and we presume this claim is correct.

On the eleventh of July, 1857, the city conveyed to Munn, whose claim to the lot we have already stated, whatever title it had, or could convey, in said wharfage lot, by virtue of the acts of the legislature. Munn secured to the city the $3252 assessed upon lot 1, and afterwards paid that sum.

William Allen, in the meantime, had died, leaving, as his sole heirs, his two sons, Thomas and Richard Allen, the complainants herein, both minors. In 1856, their guardians sought to procure from the city a deed for the wharfage lot opposite the twenty feet, but it was never executed. The matter rested until 1864, when, both heirs having become of age, they presented to the common council a petition for a conveyance, offering to comply with all the requirements of the ordinance. This petition was finally denied in 1867, and the next year they filed their bill in this case, praying a conveyance from Munn and the city.

Munn answered, setting up his title as herein stated, and also possession and payment of taxes for seven successive years under color of title. The cause came on to a hearing, and the circuit court dismissed the bill...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hirzel
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1916
    ... ... the acquisition of riparian rights by the owners of opposite ... side of the street." (29 Cyc. 334; Allen v ... Munn, 55 Ill. 486; St. Louis Public Schools v ... Risley, 10 Wall. (U.S.) 91, 19 L.Ed. 850; Banks v ... Ogden, 2 Wall. (U.S.) 507, ... ...
  • Myers v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1884
    ...v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57; Saulet v. Shepherd, 4 Wall. 502; People v. Colgate, 67 N. Y. 512; Allegheny City v. Morehead, 80 Pa. St. 118; Allen v. Munn, 55 Ill. 486. The damages are flagrantly excessive; the jury awarded plaintiff the enormous sum of $35,000 as damages to a leasehold estate havin......
  • Reighard v. Flinn
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1899
    ... ... Minn. 114; People v. Colgate, 67 N.Y. 512; ... Codman v. Winslow, 10 Mass. 146; Rowan's ... Executors v. Portland, 8 B. Munroe, 232; Allen v ... Munn, 55 Ill. 486; Potomac Steamboat Co. v. Upper ... Potomac Steamboat Co., 109 U.S. 672; Jones v ... Johnston, 18 How. 150; Johnston v ... ...
  • People v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1909
    ...to be filed. The amendatory act made no reservation of interest of the state or canal fund in the property to be conveyed, and in Allen v. Munn, 55 Ill. 486, this court said in reference thereto: ‘On the 11th of February, 1853, the Legislature passed another act of the same general purport,......
  • 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