City of Rock Falls v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 02 August 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72--247,72--247
• Citation: City of Rock Falls v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 300 N.E.2d 331, 13 Ill.App.3d 359 (Ill. App. 1973)
• Parties: CITY OF ROCK FALLS, Plaintiff, Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee, Defendant, and William C. Jerome, Defendant, Counterplaintiff-Appellant--(Louis J. Pignatelli, Counterdefendant-Appellee).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 331

300 N.E.2d 331

13 Ill.App.3d 359

CITY OF ROCK FALLS, Plaintiff, Counterdefendant-Appellee, v.CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee, Defendant, and William C. Jerome, DefendantCounterplaintiff-Appellant--(Louis J Pignatelli, Counterdefendant-Appellee).

No. 72--247.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Aug. 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1973.

Walter E. Trittipo Jr., Chicago, Counsel, Nelson, Weinstine & Kilgus, Morrison, for appellant.

Donald E. Blodgett, Rock Falls, Counsel, Louis J. Pignatelli, Rock Falls, for appellee.

DIXON, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Whiteside County, Illinois, which dismissed the third amended counterclaim of William C. Jerome, one of the defendants, against the City of Rock Falls, the plaintiff, and Louis J. Pignatelli, its former mayor.

The City of Rock Falls on April 28, 1970, filed a complaint for authorization to repair or demolish a building alleged to be dangerous and unsafe.Title was held in trust by Chicago Title & Trust Company, Jerome was the trust beneficiary, and both of them were made defendants.Jerome filed an answer and counterclaim, and subsequently, after motions, hearings, briefs, and adverse rulings, filed an amended counterclaim, a second amended counterclaim, and a third amended counterclaim.Pignatelli was joined as an additional counterdefendant on September 3, 1970.It is from the order dismissing Jerome's third amended counterclaim, directed against the City and Pignatelli, that this appeal is taken.

The issues presented are whether the third amended counterclaim states a cause of action under Illinois law for the tort of interference, whether the defendants are protected by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act(Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 85, Sec. 1--101 et seq.), and whether suit is barred by the limitations provision of that Act or by the general five-year statute of limitations.Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 83, Sec. 16.

The challenged counterclaim alleges that Pignatelli, while mayor and chief executive officer of the City of Rock Falls, made an offer in February of 1951 to purchase in his own name the property involved in this case, but Jerome acquired the property by making a higher offer in May of 1951; that because Pignatelli was not able to obtain the property, he, and the City through his acts, deliberately, wilfully, and maliciously pursued a course of conduct which prevented Jerome from obtaining the business advantages he should have derived from his equitable ownership of the premises as trust beneficiary; that this wrongful conduct continued from June of 1961 until May 1, 1969, when Pignatelli ceased to hold office as mayor; that many wrongful acts besides those specifically mentioned in the counterclaim were committed by Pignatelli and officers and employees under his control but were concealed from Jerome; that Pignatelli publicly ridiculed one of Jerome's plans, which was to convert the building into a motelhotel, and indicated that anyone buying the property would not receive cooperation from the City or any of its departments and would 'probably find it difficult to function'; that the city clerk refused to issue applications for building permits to agents of Jerome, he said he could do nothing for them, and Pignatelli refused to allow the applications to be issued; that prospective lessees were told by Pignatelli that the building was not available, and one of the prospective lessees was told by Pignatelli that he would not allow Jerome to use the building; that a prospective user was told by Pignatelli that city water and electric service would not be provided by the City to the building and permits would not be issued to allow conversion of the building to a light manufacturing use; that an agent of Jerome who was attempting to repair leaks in the roof of the building was told by officials of the City to halt the repairs, and the City's building inspector told Jerome that no permits for repairs or remodeling would be issued to him and that Pignatelli had forbidden their issuance; that the City's electrical superintendent informed Jerome that Pignatelli had ordered him and other city officials not to authorize utilities to Jerome for the building; that the city attorney, on Pignatelli's instructions, told Jerome that the ordinances he had prepared for the City were not kept in any particular place and he did not know where Jerome could find the City's ordinances dealing with building permits and utilities; that on various occasions during 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, when Jerome had financial and civic backing for proposals to utilize his building but needed licenses, permits, and utilities, Jerome or an agent of his was told by Pignatelli and other city officials that no applications for the licenses, permits, and utilities would be accepted, considered, or granted so long as Jerome owned an interest in the premises; and that because of the continuing misconduct of Pignatelli and the City, Jerome was continuously deprived of the profits he would otherwise have made from the premises.

The tort action for interference developed at an early date to give recognition to the principle that a person's business is property which is entitled to protection from harm by another who is not acting in the exercise of some right such as the right to compete for business.Annot., 9 A.L.R.2d 228, Sec. 2.

The theory of...