City of Chicago v. Dunham Towing & Wrecking Co.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1910 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO v. DUNHAM TOWING & WRECKING CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; William N. Cottrell, Judge.
Action by the City of Chicago against the Dunham Towing & Wrecking Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Edward J. Brundage, Corp. Counsel (Charles M. Huft, of counsel), for appellant.
Michael F. Sullivan, for appellee.
On November 18, 1907, the city of Chicago brought suit in the municipal court of Chicago against the Dunham Towing & Wrecking Company to recover damages amounting to $108, resulting from an injury to certain piles supporting a part of the bridge structure of a bridge across the Chicago river at Fullerton avenue, caused on August 17, 1901, by a schooner coming in contact with them while being towed by one of appellee's tugs. The municipal court held that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and rendered judgment for the defendant. The Appellate Court for the First district affirmed that judgment and granted a certificate of importance, whereupon the city prosecuted an appeal to this court. The case was decided by the municipal court upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the city of Chicago extended one of its streets, known as Fullerton avenue, across the Chicago river by the construction of a bridge, which was paid for and is maintained out of funds derived solely from general taxation of property lying within the city of Chicago, and that the city of Chicago in its corporate or private capacity derives no income or benefit of any nature, kind, or description from the said bridge or the use thereof, but that the people residing in the city of Chicago are benefited and convenienced by the use of said bridge as a part of the street. It was a portion of this bridge that was injured by the schooner colliding with it.
The only question presented to this court for determination is whether the statute of limitations can be interposed as a defense to the action by the city to recover damages for injuries to the bridge. The rule in this state is, that the statute may be interposed to all actions by municipal corporations to enforce mere private rights, but that it is no defense to those involving public rights. Board of Supervisors of Logan County v. City of Lincoln, 81 Ill. 156;Ramsay v. County of Clinton, 92 Ill. 225;County of Piatt v. Goodell, 97 Ill. 84;School Directors v. School Directors, 105 Ill. 653;People v. Town of Oran, 121 Ill. 650, 13 N. E. 726;Greenwood v. Town of LaSalle, 137 Ill. 225, 26 N. E. 1089;Brown v. Trustees of Schools, 224 Ill. 184, 79 N. E. 579,115 Am. St. Rep. 146. Whether or not the statute of limitations can be interposed in defense of this action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flinn v. Gillen
...197 Mo. 382; Brightwell v. Kansas City, 153 Mo. App. 526; Ely v. St. Louis, 181 Mo. 723; Cassidy v. St. Joseph, 247 Mo. 197; City v. Dunham Towing Co., 246 Ill. 29. (6) The principle that the sovereign is not bound by the general terms of statutes where such statutes would restrict the powe......
-
Flinn v. Gillen
...193 Mo. 142; Palmer v. Jones, 188 Mo. 163; Doniphan County v. Chouteau, 120 Mo. 577; Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565; City v. Dunham Towing Co., 246 Ill. 29 C. Seddon and Ellison, CC., concur. OPINION LINDSAY The plaintiff, as assignee of a special tax bill issued by the city of Excelsior ......
-
City of Shelbyville v. Shelbyville Restorium, Inc.
...foreign fire insurance company held "public" because the proceeds would benefit city's fire department); City of Chicago v. Dunham Towing & Wrecking Co. (1910), 246 Ill. 29, 92 N.E. 566 (city's interest in recovering damages for destruction of bridge which it was under obligation to maintai......
-
Leonardis v. Bunnell
...to vindicate public or governmental rights as opposed to private or proprietary rights. See E.g., City of Chicago v. Dunham Towing and Wrecking Co., 246 Ill. 29, 92 N.E. 566 (Sup.Ct.1910); Reeves v. City of Phoenix 1 Ariz.App. 157, 400 P.2d 364 (Ct.App.1965); Goldberg v. Howard Cty. Welfare......