Citizens' Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 17 April 1905 |
| Citation | 74 N.E. 115,215 Ill. 174 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITIZENS' SAV. BANK & TRUST CO. et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; O. N. Carter, Judge.
Proceeding by the city of Chicago for confirmation of an assessment for street improvements. From an order denying a motion of the Citizens' Savings Bank & Trust Company and others to set aside a judgment entered by default, and to permit them to appear and file objection to confirmation, they appeal. Affirmed.Carl A. Ross, for appellants.
William M. Pindell (Edgar B. Tolman, Corp. Counsel, and Robert Redfield, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of confirmation rendered by the county court of Cook county in a proceeding, under the local improvement act of 1897, to improve Estes avenue, in the city of Chicago, by special assessment.
A judgment by default was entered on April 15, 1904, against the property involved herein, and afterwards the appellants appeared specially and made a number of motions in said proceeding, which, in effect, constituted an application to the court to set aside the default and dismiss the proceeding, or permit them to file objections to confirmation. No showing was made in support of such application, and the same was denied. As it did not appear, by affidavit or otherwise, the appellants had not been guilty of negligence in suffering a judgment by default to be entered against their property and that they had a meritorious defense to the proceeding, the court did not err in denying their application to set aside the default and in refusing to dismiss the proceedings, or permit them to file objections to confirmation. Gage v. City of Chicago, 211 Ill. 109, 71 N. E. 877.
It is, however, urged that the judgment of the county court was void, as, it is said, it appears upon the face of the record that the court was without jurisdiction of the parties or the subject-matter of the proceeding; and it is contended the appellants had the right at any time to appear and move the court to vacate said default judgment and permit them to defend upon the merits, and that it was error for the court to deny said application. The ground upon which appellants rely to sustain their contention that said judgment was void for want of jurisdiction is that the local improvement act of 1897 is unconstitutional, and three reasons are pointed out to sustain that view: First, that the Legislature had no power to provide for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Woodstock Special Assessment for Const. of Storm Sewer, Curb and Gutter, Sidewalk, Gravel Base Course and Bituminous Concrete Surface on Calhoun Street from Madison Street to Fair Street and Known as Special A
...those who object and those who do not. Due process is satisfied by the notice requirement (Citizens' Savings Bank and Trust Company v. City of Chicago (1905), 215 Ill. 174, 176, 74 N.E. 115), and all property owners have an equal opportunity to appear and challenge the assessment roll. Ther......
-
Hoehamer v. Village of Elmwood Park
...with reference to an assessment prior to it becoming a charge upon his property is sufficient notice. Citizens' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 215 Ill. 174, 74 N. E. 115. As an assessment judgment does not impose a personal liability, due process of law does not require the gi......
- Town of Bethel v. Pruett
-
Till v. Kara
... ... Chicago, for plaintiff ... C. Russell ... City of Chicago, 280 Ill. 268, 117 N.E. 500; Citizens Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 215 Ill. 174, 74 ... ...