City of Chicago v. Huleatt
| Decision Date | 09 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 11013.,11013. |
| Citation | 114 N.E. 1021,276 Ill. 466 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO v. HULEATT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Cook County Court; John H. Williams, Judge.
Assessment proceedings by the City of Chicago in which Hugh Huleatt interposed objections. From judgment for the City, the objector appeals. Reversed and remanded.Wentworth, Cavender & Kaiser, of Chicago (Daniel S. Wentworth, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Harry F. Atwood, William E. Mason, Otto W. Ulrich, and Harry F. Hamlin, all of Chicago (Samuel A. Ettelson, Corp. Counsel, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Cook county overruling objections and confirming an assessment to pay the cost of a cast-iron water supply pipe, with necessary castings, fire hydrants, and brick valve-basins, in the city of Chicago.
The appellant, whose lands were assessed, objected to the assessment on the ground that the nature, character, and description of the proposed improvement were not sufficiently described at the public hearing provided for by section 8 of the Local Improvement Act, to form a basis for an improvement ordinance or an assessment. The resolution of the board of local improvements purporting to describe the proposed improvement, together with the estimate of cost by the engineer, made a part of the record of the resolution, were in evidence, and the particular objection was that the material and description of fire hydrants, connecting pipes, and gate valves were not stated and the dimensions of brick valve-basins were not specified. The estimate of the engineer contained these items: Nineteen four-inch double-nozzle fire hydrants and six-inch connecting pipes, four of which were estimated at $85 each, fourteen at $80 each and one at $75; five twelve-inch gate valves at $45 each; eight eight-inch gate valves at $25 each; two six-inch gate valves at $25 each; and fifteen brick valve-basins, complete, at $35 each. There was no further description, and prices were different where there was no difference in description.
The purpose of the public hearing provided for by the statute is to enable property owners to determine whether they will consent to or oppose the contemplated improvement, or any of the elements thereof, or propose modifications or changes therein. In order that property owners may form a judgment and act intelligently, it is essential that they be advised of the character and kind of the improvement and the materials that will enter into to, as well as the estimated cost of each of the substantial component elements. The resolution and estimate, with the public hearing, constitute the foundation for the passage of an ordinance and an assessment to pay the cost of the improvement, and the preliminary proceedings required by the statute are jurisdictional and essential to the passage of a valid ordinance.City of Chicago Heights v. Angus, 267 Ill. 628, 108 N. E. 758. There has been no deviation in the decisions from these propositions, but there seems to be some confusion in regard to the question where and how the particulars required for the information of property owners must appear.
The view of counsel for the appellee is that the estimate was sufficient under the decision in City of Chicago v. Underwood, 258 Ill. 116, 101 N. E. 261, where it was held that the estimate of cost is sufficiently specific if it gives to the property owners a general idea of the estimated cost of the substantial component parts of the improvement. In that case the court distinguished the engineer's estimate of cost from the resolution of the board of local improvements, but it was not held in that case or any other that the property owners are not entitled to be informed of the nature, character, and description of the proposed improvement. By the statute the improvement must originate with the board of local improvements, and it is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass v. City of Casper
...the description of proposed improvements to confer jurisdiction. (Kline v. Tacoma, 39 P. 453; Hawthorne v. Portland, 10 P. 342; Chicago v. Huleatt, 114 N.E. 1021; Jose Co. v. Auzerais, 39 P. 859; City of Atlanta v. Gabbett, 20 So. 306.) Where no resolution of intention had been passed and l......
-
Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. City of Centralia, Ill.
...before he is required to pay for it." To the same effect are Gray v. W. A. Black Co., 338 Ill. 488, 170 N. E. 713; City of Chicago v. Huleatt, 276 Ill. 466, 114 N. E. 1021; City of Kankakee v. Dunn, 337 Ill. 391, 169 N. E. 251; City of Springfield v. Gillespie, 335 Ill. 388, 167 N. E. The o......
-
City of Dixon v. Sinow & Weinman
...Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1931, c. 24, § 698 et seq.). City of Lewistown v. Baldwin, 314 Ill. 564, 145 N. E. 616;City of Chicago v. Huleatt, 276 Ill. 466, 114 N. E. 1021. The engineer's estimate should be sufficiently itemized to inform the property owner of the probable cost of each of the ......
-
Baltis v. Village of Westchester
...largely on decisions of this court under the Local Improvement Act, Ill.Rev.St.1953, ch. 24, § 84-1 et seq., such as City of Chicago v. Huleatt, 276 Ill. 466, 114 N.E. 1021, and City of Mattoon v. Stump, 414 Ill. 319, 111 N.E.2d 551, and upon a Federal district court decision in Illinois Po......