City of Carlinville v. McClure

• Decision Date: 13 June 1895
• Citation: 156 Ill. 492,41 N.E. 169
• Parties: CITY OF CARLINVILLE v. McCLURE et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

156 Ill. 492

41 N.E. 169

CITY OF CARLINVILLE

v.McCLURE et al.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 13, 1895.

Appeal from Macoupin county court; Archelaus N. Yancey, Judge.

Petition of the city of Carlinville for confirmation of a special tax. Milton McClure and James A. McClure filed objections, which were sustained. The city appeals. Reversed.

M. Hoben and F. W. Burton, for appellant.

John T. Rinaker and Lewis Rinaker, for appellees.

BAKER, J.

The city of Carlinville adopted an ordinance for paving with brick East Main street, in said city, from the east line of the public square to the east line of East street, to the width of 21 feet on each side of the center line of said East Main street; and from the east line of East street to the west line of Center street, to the width of 14 feet on each side of the center line of said East Main street; and it was provided that the cost of street intersections and crossings should be paid by general taxation, and the residue of the cost of the improvement paid by special taxation of abutting lots and parcels of land. The total estimated cost of the improvement was $14,236.99, and of this the sum of $2,000.33 was apportioned to the city and $12,236.66 assessed and taxed against abutting real estate, to be paid in five installments. In this proceeding for the confirmation of the assessment roll there was judgment of confirmation by default as to all the property assessed, except that of Milton McClure and James A. McClure, who are the appellees now before us. The total assessment upon the real estate of Milton McClure was $284.26, and that upon the real estate of James A. McClure, $51.05. They interposed objections to confirmation, and the county court sustained the objection that the ordinance which provides for the improvement to pay the special tax as assessed is invalid, because the ordinance and the profile made a part of the ordinance do not contain a sufficient description of the nature, character, and locality of the proposed improvement, and that, therefore, there is no valid ordinance authorizing the imposition of said special tax. And the court refused judgment of confirmation as to the property of appellees, and dismissed the proceeding as to their lots and parcels of land. From that judgment the city prosecutes this appeal.

The ordinance provided that said East Main street, to the respective widths above indicated on each side of its center line, should ‘be excavated to the depth of eleven inches along the line thereof, below the grade as shown by the profile of said street on file in the office of the city clerk’; and that at the distance of 12 inches from the outer edges of the improvement, for th entire length thereof, the excavation should be of the depth of 15 inches,-said excavation to be in the form of a segment of a circle; and the portion of the street between said 12-inch lines and the outer edges of the street so excavated on both sides thereof to be graded and paved in a similar manner as the remainder of said street, so as to make a good and substantial gutter along said 12-inch lines. No mention is made in the ordinance of any city datum, or established grade, or any fixed object, natural or artificial, on the vertical plane of the city, other than the above reference to the profile of the street. The horizontal plane is, of course, made certain by references to the east line of the public square, the east line of East street, the west line of Center street, and the distances given on either side of the center line of East Main street. The provision in regard to the vertical location of the improvement simply is that the excavation is to be made along the center line of the street to be improved to the depth of 11 inches below the grade of said street as shown by the profile of said street on file in the office of the city clerk. It is essential to the validity of the special tax that the ordinance providing for the proposed local improvement should specify the nature, character, locality, and description of such improvement. Rev. St. c. 24, art. 9, § 19; Levy v. City of Chicago, 113 Ill. 650;City of Kankakee v. Potter, 119 Ill. 324, 10 N. E. 212;City of Carlyle v. County of Clinton, 140 Ill. 512, 30 N. E. 782;Village of Hyde Park v. Carton, 132 Ill. 100, 23 N. E. 590;Gage...