City of Chicago v. Univ. of Chicago
| Decision Date | 23 October 1907 |
| Citation | 228 Ill. 605,81 N.E. 1138 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Theo. Brentano, Judge.
Action by the University of Chicago to enjoin the city of Chicago and others from collecting taxes. A decree for complainant was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
William D. Barge (James Hamilton Lewis, of counsel), for appellants.
Judah, Willard & Wolf, for appellee.
On May 19, 1902, the city council of the city of Chicago passed the following ordinance: ‘The commissioner of public works is hereby directed and instructed to remit and cancel all water taxes and rates heretofore levied and assessed or which may hereafter be levied or assessed against such property of any charitable, religious or educational institution within the city of Chicago as is used in the immediate conduct and carrying on of the charitable, religious or educational purposes of such institution: provided, the commissioner of public works may require every application for a rebate or remission of said water rates or taxes to be verified by an affidavit of one or more taxpayers of the city of Chicago.’ In March, 1905, the city council passed another ordinance in substantially the same words, except that the proviso was omitted, and in lieu thereof these words were inserted: ‘And which is not used for gain or profit, or rented, conducted, maintained or operated for the purpose of producing revenue for such institution.’ While the first ordinance was in force, a large amount of rates for water used in certain buildings of appellee was charged against it, and was not paid. The city's superintendent of water having threatened to cut off the water supply from these buildings if such amount was not paid, the appellee filed the bill in this case for an injunction against such action. After the passage of the second ordinance, and after the hearing on the original bill but before decree, the appellee, by leave of the court, filed a supplemental bill, setting up the passage of the second ordinance and asking the same relief as in the original bill, by injunction against the cutting off of its water supply for default of payment of water rates claimed to be due under the second ordinance. The bill and supplemental bill allege that the appellee, the University of Chicago, is a corporation organized for the purpose of maintaining and conducting an institution of learning, but not for private gain or profit; that, in pursuance of such purpose, it has acquired land and erected a large number of buildings wherein to conduct and carry on its said institution of learning; and that all the water rates above mentioned were for water for various of said buildings which are owned in fee by appellee, are a part of its educational institution, and are used by appellee in the immediate conduct and carrying on of its educational purposes. The supplemental bill also avers that the said property is not used for gain or profit, or rented, conducted, maintained, or operated for the purpose of producing revenue for such institution. The answer denies that all the buildings of appellee to which said water was supplied are used by appellee in the immediate conduct and carrying on of the educational purposes of said institution, and avers that many of said buildings are used solely for the purpose of deriving gains and profits therefrom. Upon a hearing the relief asked was granted. The Appellate Court affirmed the decree of the circuit court, and this further appeal is prosecuted.
DUNN, J. (after stating the facts as above).
It is first contended by appellants that the ordinances providing for the remission of water rates to charitable, religious, or educational institutions are invalid because the city cannot give away any public property. The question does not arise on this record. The answer expressly avers that the system of waterworks is the private property of the city, conducted as a private enterprise, and not as a governmental function, and that the city has full right and authority to charge and collect from its patrons whatever rates it may see fit to fix, so long as they are reasonable, and to designate institutions to which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKenzie v. Johnson
...ex rel. Goodman v. University of Illinois Foundation (1944), 388 Ill. 363, 373, 58 N.E.2d 33; cf. City of Chicago v. University of Chicago (1907), 228 Ill. 605, 608-09, 81 N.E. 1138 (remission of water rates allowed where held that union used for educational purposes)) and for campus dormit......
-
People ex rel. Thompson v. Dixon Masonic Bldg. Ass'n
...322 Ill. 562, 153 N. E. 669;Congregational Publishing Society v. Board of Review, 290 Ill. 108, 125 N. E. 7;City of Chicago v. University of Chicago, 228 Ill. 605, 81 N. E. 1138, and Monticello Female Seminary v. People, 106 Ill. 398, 46 Am. Rep. 702, upon which the opinion in the Freeport ......
-
Church Divinity School of Pacific v. Alameda County
...finds support in many other jurisdictions. Yale University v. Town of New Haven, 1899, 71 Conn. 316, 42 A. 89; Chicago v. University of Chicago, 1907, 228 Ill. 605, 81 N.E. 1138; In re Syracuse University, 124 Misc. 788, 209 N.Y.S. 329, affirmed 1925, 214 App.Div. 375, 212 N.Y.S. 253; City ......
-
Northwestern University v. City of Evanston
...facilities used by universities were held to be educational facilities, not hotels or restaurants in City of Chicago v. University of Chicago (1907), 228 Ill. 605, 81 N.E. 1138. The fact that a separate charge was made for room and board is of no consequence. People ex rel. Hesterman v. Nor......