Chicago W.D. Ry. Co. v. People ex rel. Kern

• Decision Date: 15 January 1895
• Citation: 40 N.E. 342,154 Ill. 256
• Parties: CHICAGO W. D. RY. CO. v. PEOPLE ex rel. KERN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

154 Ill. 256

40 N.E. 342

CHICAGO W. D. RY. CO.

v.PEOPLE ex rel. KERN.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 15, 1895.²

Appeal from Cook county court.

Application by the people of the state of Illinois, on the relation of Charles Kern, treasurer and ex officio collector of taxes of Cook county, for judgment upon delinquent special assessments. The Chicago West Division Railway Company filed objections, which were overruled. The objector appeals. Affirmed.

E. Jamieson, E. Maher, and C. C. Gilbert, for appellant.

the county court of Cook county on the application

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Cook county on the application of the county collector for a judgment upon delinquent special assessments of the city of Chicago for street improvements. It appears from the evidence introduced on the application for judgment that on the 25th day of July, 1894, the common council of the city of Chicago passed an ordinance for the improvement of Warren avenue from Western avenue to Rockwell street, and thereafter a petition was filed in the county court of Cook county reciting said ordinance in case No. 17,121. Commissioners were appointed in accordance with the prayer of the petition, and in due time returned an assessment roll into the county court of Cook county. In the assessment roll the premises of objector were assessed to and in the name of ‘W. Div. Ry. Co.’ At the time of the passage of the ordinance and the making of the assessment, the Chicago West Division Railway Company was the owner in fee simple of the premises, as appears by stipulation, although its deed was not of record. It is claimed by appellant that the judgment of the county court overruling its objections are erroneous, on two grounds: First, it is denied that the county court had jurisdiction to confirm the assessment, upon the alleged ground that the notice of the assessment and the term of court at which a final hearing thereon would be had which the statute required to be sent by mail to each owner was not given to appellant; second, that the ordinance is void, because it fails to properly give the locality of the improvement.

CRAIG, J. (after stating the facts).

Section 27 of chapter 30 of our statute entitled ‘Cities, Villages, and Towns,’ requires the commissioners who may make an assessment to give notice of the assessment, and of the term of court at which a final hearing thereon will be had. First, they shall send by mail to each owner of premises assessed, whose name and place of residence is known to them, a notice; second, they shall cause at least 10 days' notice to be given by posting notices in at least four public places in such city or village, and, when a daily newspaper is published in such city or village, by publishing the same at least five successive days in such paper, etc. No question is made here in regard to the publication in a newspaper. The only claim is that the notice mailed was addressed to and mailed to ‘W. Div. Ry. Co.,’ when it should have been addressed and mailed to ‘Chicago W. Div. Ry. Co.’

Section 28 of the statute provides that, on or before the final hearing, the affidavit of one or more of the commissioners shall be filed in said court, stating that they have sent or caused to be sent by mail, to the owners where premises have been assessed, and where name and place of business are known to them, the notice required to be sent by mail to owners of premises assessed. Upon the application to confirm the assessment, the county court had before it the affidavit required by the section of the statute supra, which contained the following: ‘And that said commissioners did cause to be sent by mail to the owners whose premises have been assessed by said commissioners, and whose names and places of residence were known to them, or either of them, the notice required by law to be sent by mail to the owners of premises assessed, a substantial copy of said notice being as follows: [Here follows a substantial copy of notice sent.]’ This affidavit is a part of the record of the county court in the proceeding to confirm the assessment, and from the affidavit it is apparent that the notice required to be sent by mail to owners was given. Clark v. People, 146 Ill. 348, 35 N. E. 60, may be regarded as conclusive of the question. There, in an application of the county collector for judgment for delinquent taxes and assessments, an owner of land appeared for the purpose of questioning the validity of the judgment confirming the assessment, and...