Blue Bird Air Serv., Inc. v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 10 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 25967.,25967. |
| Citation | 33 N.E.2d 456,376 Ill. 272 |
| Parties | BLUE BIRD AIR SERVICE, Inc., v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action for injunction by the Blue Bird Air Service, Incorporated, against the City of Chicago and others. From a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity, plaintiff appeals.
Cause transferred to the appellate court.Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; John J. Lupe, Judge.
Edward H. Murnane and James A. Harrington, both of Chicago (Sidney R. Zatz, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Barnet Hodes, Corp. Counsel, and Essington & McKibbin, all of Chicago (Joseph F. Grossman, J. Herzl Segal, L. Louis Karton, Hamilton K. Beebe, and William A. Brunstad, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
Appellant, the Blue Bird Air Service, Inc., filed its complaint in the superior court of Cook county to enjoin defendants, the city of Chicago, it mayor, comptroller and commissioner of public works, from entering into a contract with the Monarch Air Service, Inc., granting the latter a concession for the exclusive operation of sightseeing airplanes from the Chicago Municipal Airport, and also to restrain the defendants from interfering with appellant's operation of an air sightseeing business originating from the Chicago Municipal Airport. By leave of court the Monarch Air Service, Inc., was allowed to become a party defendant. All of the defendants answered, and, upon a hearing, a decree was entered dismissing the complaint for want of equity. Appellant has filed an appeal directly to this court.
At the outset the question of jurisdiction of this court to entertain a direct appeal is presented. Appellant leased from the city of Chicago hangar space No. 17 of the Chicago Municipal Airport, which was to be used for hangar and aviation purposes only, and which lease contained the following provision: ‘To use said premises only for the purpose of carrying on an air transportation and storage business, in receiving and discharging of passengers, baggage, mail and freight; and/or for the housing and servicing of airplanes; and/or for the sale of airplanes and parts; and not to use or permit the use of said premises for a school of aviation, or for furnishing instructions to students or for any purpose in connection with student flying; and not to use or permit the use of said premises for restaurant purposes, of for the sale of foodstuffs, tobacco, candy, beverages, newspapers or any merchandise whatsoever, except as above stated.’ The term of the lease is from February, 1936, to December 31, 1950.
In January, 1939, Oscar E. Hewitt, commissioner of public works of Chicago, advertised for proposals for a concession for the exclusive operation of sightseeing airplanes at the Chicago Municipal Airport for a period of four years, according to specifications of file in his office. In response thereto various proposals were received by said commissioner, including one from appellant and one from the Monarch Air Service, Inc., and the latter, being the highest bidder for the concession, it was announced that a contract would be entered into between the city of Chicago, and said Monarch Air Service, Inc., granting the latter the concession for the exclusive operation of sightseeing airplanes for said period. On April 3, 1940, a resolution was adopted by the city council of Chicago authorizing the commissioner of public works to enter into a contract with the Monarch Air Service, Inc., for a period of four years, in accordance with the advertised specifications, for the operation of the Chicago Municipal Airport sightseeing concession.
Appellant claims that it had invested considerable money in airplanes used in connection with air transportation and air sightseeing business, and that the principal part of its transportation business consisted in sightseeing, and that the action of the defendants threatened to destroy the business of appellant and render its property worthless, and that the granting of an exclusive concession, as contemplated, was a violation of the provisions of its lease, and in violation of the constitution of the United States and of the State of Illinois. It is further claimed that the Civil Aeronautics act of 1938, U.S.C.A. title 49, §§ 452(a), 453, 401, 402, contained provisions which prohibited the city of Chicago from granting an exclusive concession for sightseeing purposes by reason of the fact that Federal funds had been used in the construction of said airport.
The answer of the defendants alleges that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dethloff v. Zeigler Coal Co.
...be found on said premises * * * " as a freehold, requiring a release of homestead rights. However, in Blue Bird Air Service, Inc. v. City of Chicago (1941), 376 Ill. 272, 33 N.E.2d 456, interpreting a lease of hanger space at an airport, the court pointed out that a lease for any number of ......
-
Ex parte Houston
...Deposit Co. of Md., 155 Wash. 618, 285 P. 656; City Sanitary Service v. Rausch, 10 Wash.2d 446, 117 P.2d 225; Blue Bird Air Service v. City of Chicago, 376 Ill. 272, 33 N.E.2d 456. Petitioner herein argues that the case of Miami Beach Airline Service v. Crandon, supra, relied on by responde......
-
Greater Wilmington Transp. Authority v. Kline
...franchise may owe its existence to prescription or long standing use, though this too presupposes a grant. Blue Bird Air Service v. City of Chicago, 376 Ill. 272, 33 N.E.2d 456 (1941). The granting of franchises to operate a public utility is an exercise of the legislative function of the s......
- People ex rel. Toman v. 1500 Lake Shore Drive Bldg. Corp.