City of Chicago v. Jerome

• Decision Date: 22 February 1922
• Docket Number: Nos. 14192,14193.,s. 14192
• Citation: 134 N.E. 92,301 Ill. 587
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGO v. JEROME.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

301 Ill. 587

134 N.E. 92

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.JEROME.

Nos. 14192, 14193.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 22, 1922.

Proceedings by the City of Chicago for the construction of a sewer system by special assessment to which William B. Jerome filed objections. The assessment roll in the original proceeding was confirmed, a motion to vacate the judgment of confirmation and to refer the assessment roll to be recast was overruled, and from the judgment and the denial of the motion, objector appeals, the appeals being consolidated.

Reversed and remanded.Appeals from Cook County Court; John H. Williams, Judge.

Holdom, Pratt & Zeiss, of Chicago, for appellant.

Samuel A. Ettelson, Corp. Counsel, George A. Curran, and George P. Foster, all of Chicago, for appellee.

THOMPSON, J.

May 23, 1917, appellee filed in the county court of Cook county a petition for the construction of a sewer system by special assessment on certain streets and avenues in the city of Chicago. Attached to the petition were the recommendation and the estimate of the board of local improvements and the ordinance passed by the city counsel, describing in detail the improvement to be made in the streets named. Appellant and other propery owners, including the Municipal Engineering & Construction Company, filed objections to the confirmation of the assessment roll. These objections were overruled, and an order of confirmation was entered August 2, 1917. On appeal to this court it was held that the extension of the improvement into a practically uninhabited region was oppressive and unreasonable, and the judgment of confirmation was set aside with respect to the property of the engineering company. City of Chicago v. Engineering Co., 283 Ill. 160, 119 N. E. 40. Appellee filed its election to proceed with the improvement notwithstanding the appeal, and September 1, 1917, let the contract for the entire improvement. January 26, 1920, an order was entered, on motion of appellee's attorneys, in the county court, setting aside the order of confirmation of August 2, 1917, and the assessment roll was ordered referred to the superintendent of special assessments, with directions to recast the assessment as to certain described property, not including the property of appellant, by assessing its proportionate share of the estimated cost of said improvement exclusive of the lateral sewers, the extension of which this court had held to be unreasonable and oppressive. After the decision of this court in City of Chicago v. Engineering Co., supra, appellee abandoned that portion of the improvement which was to be constructed in West Eighty-Third street, West Eighty-Third place, West Eighty-Fourth street, West Eighty-Fourth place, and West Eighty-Fifth street, west of South Kedzie avenue, where the main sewer was to be laid. Each of the abandoned laterals was one-half mile long. The court found that the property of the engineering company would eventually be served by the main sewer when lateral sewers were constructed in the streets west of South Kedzie avenue and new assessments were made against each of its lots; the total amount assessed against the company in the recast roll being $3,532.75, which amount was later reduced about one-half. The order directing that the roll be recast required that the new assessments should be made in red-ink figures on the face of the original assessment roll, and directed that when the new assessment was made notice be given to the owners of the property reassessed, and that said owners be given a hearing on the recast roll. The assessment roll does not show an amount set opposite appellant's property in red ink, and the record does not show that he or his attorneys received any notice of the order changing the extent of the improvement, and directing the assessment roll to be recast, nor of the hearing on the confirmation of the recast roll. The recast assessment roll was confirmed, and the appellee filed its petition under section 84 of the Local Improvement Act, asking that the final order be entered, finding that the improvement had been completed substantially in accordance with the original ordinance. November 24, 1920, this order was entered, and on December 22 appellee filed its petition for a supplemental assessment. Attached to this petition were the recommendationand estimate of the board of local improvements and the ordinance passed by the city counsel. Appellant filed 33 objections to the confirmation of the supplemental assessment roll. These objections were overruled, and a judgment was entered confirming the roll, and appellant appealed. Thereafter appellant moved that the court vacate the judgment of confirmation in the original assessment proceeding, and that it refer the assessment roll to the superintendent of special assessments to be recast as to his property. This motion was overruled, and appellant appealed from this ruling. The appeals have been consolidated in this court.

Appellant contends that the improvement constructed by appellee is an improvement entirely different from the one described in the original ordinance, and that a supplemental assessment to pay a deficiency for the cost of the improvement as constructed cannot be maintained for the reason that there is no ordinance authorizing the improvement.

The authority to make local improvements by special assessment is statutory, and the statute must be followed strictly in order to give the courts jurisdiction to enforce the collection...