City of Chicago v. Adcock

• Decision Date: 01 November 1897
• Citation: 48 N.E. 155,168 Ill. 221
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGO v. ADCOCK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

168 Ill. 221

48 N.E. 155

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.ADCOCK.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 1, 1897.

Appeal from Cook county court; Richard Yates, Judge.

An application by the city of Chicago for the confirmation of an assessment levied on property of Bessie B. Adcock for the cost of sewer was denied, and the city appeals. Affirmed.

J. D. Adair, for appellant.

David G. Robertson, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cook county refusing to confirm a special assessment levied to pay the cost of a vitrified tile pipe sewer, to be constructed in Cottage Grove avenue, along a line 24 feet east of, and parallel with, the west line thereof, from the south line of Sixty-First street to a point 16 feet south of the north line of Sixtieth street. The streets, location of sewer, and land owned by the objector, Bessie B. Adcock, are shown by the following plat:

Image 1 (2.68" X 4.74") Available for Offline Print

Lot 16, owned by the objector, as appears from the evidence, is a 5-acre lot, 300 feet wide and 600 feet long, extending from Sixtieth to Sixty-First street. The assessment roll made by the commissioners appointed to make the assessment shows that the public or the city of Chicago is not benefited by the improvement. Therefore no part of the cost of the improvement was laid on the city, but the entire cost of the improvement, $1,031.65, was assessed on the east 125 feet of lot 16, the property of the objector. A number of objections were interposed by appellee to a confirmation of the report, and upon a hearing before the court the objections were all sustained. We shall not stop to answer all of the objections urged against the confirmation of the assessment, if there was one valid objection that would suffice to defeat a judgment of confirmation. No witness was introduced in the hearing to testify that the improvement was any benefit to the property owned, but, on the other hand, there was evidence tending to prove that the proposed improvement was of no benefit whatever to the property of the objector. Evidence was introduced tending to show that Sixty-First street, which runs east and west, is a division line between separte and distinct drainage districts in the city of Chicago; that property south of Sixty-first street is drained southward, and property north of Sixty-First street is drained to the north and west; so that the property of the objector lies in a different drainage district from the...