City of Bloomington v. Chicago & A.R. Co.
Citation | 134 Ill. 451,26 N.E. 366 |
Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Decision Date | 01 November 1890 |
Parties | CITY OF BLOOMINGTON v. CHICAGO & A. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from county court, McLean county; C. D. MEYERS, Judge.
Petition of the city of Bloomington for a special tax. The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company objected to the confirmation of the tax. Its objections were sustained, and the petitioner appeals. Rev. St. Ill. c. 24, art. 9, § 1, empowers the corporate authorities of cities and villages ‘to make local improvements by special assessment, or by special taxation, or both, of contiguous property, or general taxation.’
A. E. De Mange, (Sain Welty, of counsel,) for appellant.
Williams & Capen, for appellee.
On the 10th day of January, 1890, the city council of the city of Bloomington, in pursuance of the provisions of article 9, c. 24, Rev. St., passed an ordinance entitled ‘An ordinance for the opening and widening of Olive street,’ as follows: The committee appointed to estimate the cost of the improvement made the following report:
+---------------------------------------------------+ ¦Cost of excavating and grading for all ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦that part of said improvement to be ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦paid for by special taxation ¦$ 911 00 ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦Cost of stone masonry for said ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦improvement ¦7,364 00 ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦Cost of all other materials and labor ¦7,224 00 ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦Court costs, including the cost of ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦assessing and collecting the special ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦taxes provided for in said ordinance ¦300 00 ¦ +----------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦Total to be paid for by special taxation¦$15,799 00¦ +---------------------------------------------------+
In due course, commissioners were appointed to assess the special tax provided for in the ordinance, who made the following assessment, viz.:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corp. v. Richland County, a Municipal Corporation
... ... property unless specifically provided by statute ... Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Ottumwa, 112 Iowa 300, ... 51 L.R.A. 763, 83 N.W ... 583; Dean v. Paterson, 67 N.J.L. 199, 50 A. 620; ... Allegheny City v. Western Pennsylvania R. Co. 138 ... Pa. 375, 21 A. 763; New York & ... New York & H. R. Co. v. Morrisania, 7 Hun, 652; ... Bloomington v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 134 Ill. 451, 26 ... N.E. 366; Bridgeport v. New ... ...
-
People ex rel. Akin v. Kipley
...be reasonable in order to be valid, and that they must spring from an honest exercise of legislative discretion. Bloomington v. Railroad Co., 134 Ill. 451, 26 N. E. 366; Hawes v. City of Chicago, supra. The civil service law is binding as well upon the common council of the city as upon the......
- Palmer v. City of Danville
- Job v. City of Alton