City of Chicago v. Edens
| Decision Date | 04 February 1914 |
| Citation | 261 Ill. 272,103 N.E. 996 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO v. EDENS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Theodore Brentano, Judge.
Proceedings by the City of Chicago against William G. Edens for the confirmation of a special assessment for the construction of a sidewalk. From a judgment of confirmation, William G. Edens appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Edward Roby, of Chicago, for appellant.
Philip J. McKenna and Howard F. Bishop, both of Chicago (William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of confirmation in a special assessment proceeding for the building of a cinder sidewalk six feet wide on East 104th street, from the southwesterly curb line of Indianapolis avenue to the west curb line of Avenue G, in the city of Chicago.
[1][2] Appellant contends that the improvement provided in the estimate of the engineer differs from that described in the ordinance, and that under the statute a public hearing should have been had in this proceeding. There was no public hearing. Appellee contends that it was not necessary, as this improvement is within the exception found in the proviso of section 7 of the Local Improvement Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1911, c. 24, § 513), that in proceedings for the ‘laying, building, constructing or renewing of any sidewalk * * * no resolution, public hearing or preliminary proceedings * * * shall be necessary.’ The estimate of the engineer stated that the cost for grading for the improvement would be $464.36 and for cinders $281.67, and then concluded with the following: ‘Two inches by six inches wooden curb, nailed to cedar posts, back filled with earth, 3,045 lineal feet, at $.28 per lineal foot, $852.60.’ The total estimated cost was $1,598.63. The ordinance did not provide specifically for any back-filling with earth. This court held, in City of Chicago v. Bassett, 238 Ill. 412, 87 N. E. 384, that a public hearing was necessary where a sidewalk ordinance under the Local Improvement Act providedfor the construction of a berm on either side of the walk; that such berm was no part of the sidewalk, within the meaning of said section 7. The berm provided for in the ordinance in that case was substantially what would be understood by back-filling as provided for in the estimate for this improvement, in the words ‘back filled with earth.’ See People v. Field, 197 Ill. 568, 64 N. E. 544;People v. Patton, 223 Ill. 379, 79 N. E. 51;People v. Klehm, 238 Ill. 89, 87 N. E. 119. While these last cases referred to the special sidewalk act, this court, in City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little River Drainage Dist. v. Friedlein
...and estimated by the court, and to this extent such levies are void. Fellows v. Dorsey, 171 Mo.App. 289, 157 S.W. 995; Chicago v. Edens, 261 Ill. 272, 103 N.E. 996; Collins v. City of Ellensburg, 122 P. Williams v. Hybskmann, 247 S.W. 203; Williams v. Hybskmann, 278 S.W. 377; Probert v. Inv......
-
Little River Drainage Dist. v. Friedlein
...and estimated by the court, and to this extent such levies are void. Fellows v. Dorsey, 171 Mo. App. 289, 157 S.W. 995; Chicago v. Edens, 261 Ill. 272, 103 N.E. 996; Collins v. City of Ellensburg, 122 Pac. 1010; Williams v. Hybskmann, 247 S.W. 203; Williams v. Hybskmann, 278 S.W. 377; Probe......
-
Vill. of Ladd v. Chicago, O.&P. Ry. Co.
...to remove any uncertainty as to the description of the improvement and to ascertain the proper description thereof. City of Chicago v. Edens, 261 Ill. 272, 103 N. E. 996; City of Hillsboro v. Grassel, supra. The second item of the estimate provides for ‘3,100 lineal feet of concrete curb si......
-
Vill. of Homewood v. Chicago Picture Frame Grannis
...City of Chicago v. Bassett, 238 Ill. 412, 87 N. E. 384;Village of Glencoe v. Uthe, 253 Ill. 518, 97 N. E. 1057;City of Chicago v. Edens, 261 Ill. 272, 103 N. E. 996. The record shows that it was agreed by the parties that no public hearing was held. If the failure to hold the public hearing......