City of Lake View v. Tate

Decision Date26 November 1889
PartiesCITY OF LAKE VIEW v. TATE.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Jonas Hutchinson, for appellant.

Walker & Eddy, for appellee.

BAILEY, J.

This was a suit brought by the city of Lake View against H. Tate, before a justice of the peace, to recover the penalty imposed by an ordinance of said city regulating the speed of rail way trains. The trial before the justice of the peace resulted in a judgment of favor of the city for $200, and costs. On appeal to the criminal court of Cook county, a trial de novo was had before the court, a jury being waived, resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendant. That judgment, being taken to the appellate court by appeal, was affirmed, and by further appeal the record is brought to this court for review.

The city of Lake View, during the period of time covered by the matters in question, was a municipal corporation organized under the general law, embracing a territory extending north and south along the shore of Lake Michigan, from the city of Chicago to the town of Evanston, a distance of five miles, and having an average width of about two miles. Ashland avenue runs north from the north line of Chicago to a point about one mile south of the north line of Lake View, where it is intersected by Clark street, and the latter street runs from the point of intersection, in a course nearly due north, to said north line of Lake View; said street and avenue thus forming a continuous line, north and sought, through Lake View, and dividing it into two nearly equal sections. Two lines of railway, and two only, run through said city, viz., the Chicago & Northwestern and the Chicago & Evanston, both in a north and south direction, and nearly paralled with each other. The Chicago & Northwestern Railway runs from the city of Milwaukee, through the town of Evanston, to its general passenger station in the city of Chicago, and passes through the city of Lake View, parallel with Ashland avenue, and about one-eighth of a mile westerly therefrom. The Chicago & Evanston Railway runs from the town of Evanston to its general passenger station in Chicago, and passes through Lake View on a line nearly parallelwith Ashland avenue, and from a third to a half of a mile easterly therefrom. On the 19th day of July, 1886, a general ordinance regulating the speed of trains in Lake View was passed, said ordinance being applicable alike to all railways, and limiting the speed of passenger trains to ten miles an hour, and of freight trains to six miles an hour. On the 2d day of August, 1886, said ordinance was so amended as not to apply to any railway company which should maintain gates or flagmen at certain designated crossings. January 13, 1888, the following ordinance was passed, to-wit: ‘Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Lake View: Section 1. That, in order to regulate the speed of railroad trains within the city of Lake View, the following described districts are hereby established: First. All that part of the city of Lake View lying east of Ashland avenue and North Clark street, northward from the point where North Clark street intersects with Ashland avenue, shall be, and the same is hereby, declared to be the east railroad district. Second. All that part of the city of Lake View lying west of Ashland avenue and North Clark street, at the point where North Clark street intersects with Ashland avenue, shall be, and the same is hereby, declared to be the west railroad district. Sec. 2. That no railroad train, locomotive, engine, or car used for the transportation of passengers shall be run through or within the limits of the east railroad district, as above described, at a greater rate of speed than ten (10) miles an hour; and, in any other case than passenger trains, the rate of speed within such districts shall not exceed six (6) miles an hour. Sec. 3. If any railroad corporation, or its conductor, engineer, or other agent or servant, shall violate the provisions of the preceding section, such corporation, conductor, engineer, or other agent or servant shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for such offense, in addition to the liability to such punishment as is provided by the statute of the state of Illinois for a like offense. Sec. 4. The mayor of the city of Lake View is hereby charged with the duty of using all means and measures in his power to detect and punish any violation of this ordinance; and the city attorney is hereby charged with the duty of rendering the mayor such assistance in the premises as may be necessary to bring to punishment any offenders against this ordinance. Sec. 5. An ordinance entitled ‘An ordinance to regulate the speed of railroads,’ passed and approved July 19, 1886, and an ordinance amendatory thereof, passed August 2, 1886, are hereby repealed. Sec. 6. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its proper publication.'

The defendant was a locomotive engineer in the employ of the Chicago & Evanston Railway Company, and the complainant charges that on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Hopkins v. City Of Richmond
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1915
    ...power conferred upon it by section 1038 of the Code of 1904. For the distinction as to the powers referred to. see City of Lake View v. Tate, 130 Ill. 247, 22 N. E. 791. 6 L. R. A. at page 269; 1 Dillon. Mun. Corp. §§ 319, 32S, and authorities cited. "Police power is denned in 8 Cyc. 863, a......
  • Union Cemetery Association v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1913
    ... ... Wah, 82 F. 623; People v. Wilber, 198 N.Y. 1; ... In re Van Horne, 74 N.J.Eq. 600; Lake View v ... Tate, 130 Ill. 247; Philadelphia v. Westminster ... Cemetery Co., 162 Pa. St. 105 ... ...
  • Dean Milk Co. v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1944
    ...which it is vested is not absolute, but is subject to the limitation that the ordinance must be reasonable. City of Lake View v. Tate, 130 Ill. 247, 22 N.E. 791,6 L.R.A. 268. Whether the ordinance in a particular case is reasonable is a judicial question, and an unreasonable ordinance will ......
  • Mader v. The City of Topeka
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1920
    ... ... invalid." (2 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 5th ed., ... § 600; City of Lake View v. Tate, 130 Ill. 247, ... 252, 22 N.E. 791.) ... An ... ordinance may be ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT